Value for Money Review of Small Primary Schools
Department of Education and Skills, April 2013
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Value for Money Review of Small Primary Schools .....................i
List of Tables v
List of Charts vii
List of Figures viii
Executive Summary ......................................................................1
Chapter 1: Introduction ..............................................................18
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Chapter 2:
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.10
Background to the Value for Money Review Process ....................................... 18
Terms of Reference........................................................................................... 18
Context for selection of topic ............................................................................. 19
Scope of Review................................................................................................ 19
Steering Committee........................................................................................... 20
Overview of primary school provision ..............21
Historical overview ............................................................................................ 21
Developments from 1831 until 1960 ................................................................. 21
Developments from 1960 to 1990 ..................................................................... 22
Developments from 1990 to the present ........................................................... 24
Legislative background...................................................................................... 27
Number of primary schools and pupils .............................................................. 28
Size of primary schools ..................................................................................... 29
Categories of primary school............................................................................ 32
Financial cost of primary education provision ................................................... 34
Numbers of school closures, amalgamations and new schools ....................... 35
School closures ................................................................................................. 38
School amalgamations ...................................................................................... 38
New schools: trends and procedures for establishment .................................. 39
Trends in the distribution of primary schools according to school size and pupil
numbers............................................................................................................. 42
Projections for future provision of mainstream primary school requirements ... 45
Population growth areas.................................................................................... 49
Findings ............................................................................................................. 52
Chapter 3: Objectives of primary school provision .................54
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Chapter 4:
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Chapter 5:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
General approach to provision of primary schools............................................ 54
Population factors.............................................................................................. 54
Location of small schools .................................................................................. 55
Reasons for continued provision of small schools ............................................ 57
Analysis of small school provision in each county ............................................ 61
Findings ............................................................................................................. 64
Value for Money Review – Methodology ...........65
Programme Logic Model ................................................................................... 65
Application of the PLM to the provision of small primary schools ..................... 65
Application of the PLM to the provision of small primary schools ..................... 68
Research Methodology ..................................................................................... 70
Small schools, community and international practice
Public consultations on the review of small primary schools ............................ 71
Key concerns identified in the submissions on the review of small primary
schools .............................................................................................................. 72
Meaning of “community” and “small” ................................................................. 73
International practice in small school provision................................................. 75
Findings ............................................................................................................. 88
- ii -
71
Chapter 6: Programme Objectives – Extent of Achievement and
Effectiveness 90
Key Questions 90
6.1
International research on correlation of educational outcomes and school size
90
6.2
Summary of the findings of the Department’s inspectorate on the effect of
school size on factors related to teaching and learning in primary schools ...... 92
6.3
Findings from the Educational Research Centre .............................................. 94
6.4
Analysis of the 582 small schools into seven groups........................................ 96
6.4.1 Features distinctive to Group1: Catholic, English medium, Outside the Gaeltacht
(423 schools) ................................................................................................... 105
6.4.2
Features distinctive to Group 2: Church of Ireland small schools (74 schools)
112
6.4.3
Features distinctive to Group 3: Gaeltacht small schools (51)...................... 119
6.4.4
Features distinctive to Group 4: Island small schools (13) ........................... 125
6.4.5
Features distinctive to Group 5: Presbyterian small schools (9)................... 128
6.4.6
Features distinctive to Group 6: All-Irish small schools, Catholic, outside the
Gaeltacht (7).................................................................................................... 131
6.4.7
Features distinctive to Group 7: Multi-denominational small schools (5)....... 134
6.5
School transport scheme for primary pupils ................................................... 134
6.6
Findings ........................................................................................................... 136
Chapter 7
139
Small schools provision: Objectives – Cost and Efficiency of
Achievement 139
7.1
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 139
7.3
Identification of inputs...................................................................................... 140
7.4
Current expenditure......................................................................................... 140
7.4.1
Pay costs ......................................................................................................... 140
7.4.2
Running costs.................................................................................................. 150
7.4.3
Conclusions on identifying current costs applicable to schools ...................... 151
7.5
Capital expenditure ......................................................................................... 157
7.5.1
Pattern of capital expenditure (2000 - 2012)................................................... 157
7.5.2
Present position regarding capital expenditure ............................................... 158
7.5.3
Capital costs for new school buildings ............................................................ 159
7.5.4
Conclusions regarding capital expenditure .................................................... 160
7.6
Findings ........................................................................................................... 160
Chapter 8
162
Exploration of options for re-organisation .............................. 162
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.3.1
8.4
8.5
8.5.1
8.6
8.6.1
8.6.2
8.9
8.10
Exploration of re-organisation options:............................................................ 162
Selection of sample areas for analysis of re-organisation options.................. 169
Conduct of sampling exercise ......................................................................... 170
Data examined for each school in a sample ................................................... 172
Option A: Increase the minimum viability threshold – effect in the sample areas
174
Option B:
Amalgamation – effect in the sample areas ............................... 176
Overview of savings from amalgamation ........................................................ 176
Option C:
Federation – effect in the sample areas..................................... 180
Overview of savings from possible federations of the small schools in the
sample areas (Option C: Part 1)..................................................................... 180
Option C (Part 2) Amalgamation of small schools in the sample areas where a
federation did not seem possible..................................................................... 183
Estimated national annual savings from re-organisation ................................ 186
Findings ........................................................................................................... 195
Chapter 9
197
Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................... 197
Introduction197
Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 198
9.1
Policy on preferred minimum school size....................................................... 199
9.2
Reorganise small school provision.................................................................. 200
- iii -
9.3
9.4
9.5
Issues regarding particular categories of school............................................. 204
Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 206
Future performance indicators ........................................................................ 206
Appendices
207
Appendix 1:
Staffing schedule 2012/13 ................................................................... 208
Appendix 2: Teacher allowances for posts of responsibility.......................................... 209
Appendix 3 Assumptions used in calculating estimated current expenditure for 2014 210
Appendix 4: Basis for calculation of estimated capital costs of schools of various sizes by
teacher number ............................................................................................... 211
Appendix 5: Sample area studies.................................................................................. 212
Sample 1 map 213
Sample 1 options ............................................................................................................ 214
Sample 2 map 216
Sample 2 options ............................................................................................................ 217
Sample 3 map 219
Sample 3 options ............................................................................................................ 220
Sample 4 map 223
Sample 4 options ............................................................................................................ 224
Sample 5 map 227
Sample 5 options ............................................................................................................ 228
Sample 6 map 231
Sample 6 options ............................................................................................................ 232
Sample 7 map 236
Sample 7 options ............................................................................................................ 237
Sample 8 map 240
Sample 8 options ............................................................................................................ 241
Sample 9 map 246
Sample 9 options ............................................................................................................ 247
Sample 10 map 250
Sample 10 options .......................................................................................................... 251
Sample 11 map 253
Sample 11 options .......................................................................................................... 254
Sample 12 map 256
Sample 12 options .......................................................................................................... 257
Appendix 6:
Detail of exploration of amalgamation options...................................... 260
Appendix 7:
Detail of exploration of federation option............................................. 271
- iv -
List of Tables
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Table 2.8
Table 2.9
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 5.1
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Table 6.11
Table 6.12
Table 6.13
Table 6.14
Table 6.15
Table 6.16
Table 6.17
Table 6.18
Table 6.19
Table 6.20
Table 6.21
Table 6.22
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Table 7.8
Table 7.9
Number of primary schools aided by the Department (2009-2011)
Pupil distribution in primary schools (2009/10)
Pupil distribution in primary schools (2011/12)
Size of primary schools (up to 100 pupils) 2009/10
Number of primary schools by patron body 2010/12
Statement of 2011 expenditure on first-level education
School closures, amalgamations and recognition (2000 to 2012)
County overview of school closures, amalgamations and
permanent recognition (2000 - 2012)
Patronage of new primary schools established in period 2000 to 2012
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
Ireland: overview of population changes 1841 -2011 (CSO)
Number of small schools in each province (2009/10)
Distribution of Gaeltacht primary schools (2009/10)
Category of small school in each county (2009/10)
Application of PLM to the Review
Performance indicators and key questions to assess effectiveness
Performance indicators and key questions to assess efficiency
Overview of submissions received by respondent category
No. of incidental inspections/whole school evaluations examined
No. of parent/pupil questionnaires examined
Pupil distribution according to size of school 2009/10
Classification of the small schools (2009/10)
Small schools within 10km of another school of the same type
Distance (km) of small schools to nearest school of the same type (2009/10)
Group 1 according to enrolment and distance (423 schools)
Group 1: Single gender primary schools (2010/11)
Group 1: No of schools within 8km of a Group 1 small school
Group 1: Pupil enrolment of nearest school to small school
Group 2 according to enrolment and distance (74 schools)
Group 2: Enrolment size of primary schools (2009/10)
Group 2: No of schools within 8km of the small schools (2009/10)
Group 2: Pupil enrolment of the nearest school to small school
Group 3 according to enrolment and distance (51 schools)
Group 3: Pupil enrolment related to school language status (2009/10)
Group 3: No of schools within 8km of a Group 3 small school
Group 3: Pupil enrolment of nearest school to small school
Group 4 according to enrolment and distance (13 schools)
Group 5 according to enrolment and distance (9 schools)
Group 6 according to enrolment and distance (7 schools)
Group 7 according to enrolment and distance (5 schools)
No of national school pupils in ordinary classes, teaching teachers
and total teachers classified by pupil size of school (2011/12)
Phased implementation of staffing schedule adjustment for
1-, 2-, 3- and 4-teacher primary schools (2012 – 2014)
Mean number of pupils per teacher size of school prior to Budget 2012
Estimated mean number of pupils per teacher size of school in 2014/15
(estimated using 2011/12 enrolments)
Estimated increase in mean enrolment in small schools by 2014
(based on 2011/12 enrolments)
Allocation per mainstream classroom teaching post under the GAM
(from Sept 2012)
Effect in 2014 of reduction in capitation and ancillary services
grant funding for primary schools
2014 estimated per-pupil mean expenditure for schools
from 1 teacher to 16 teachers
Estimated additional annual cost premium for schools of 1-, 2-, 3- and 4teachers from 2014 compared with an 8-teacher school
-v-
54
55
58
62
67
69
69
72
93
93
95
97
98
99
104
105
106
109
111
112
113
116
118
119
120
122
124
127
130
133
36
41
142
143
144
145
146
148
151
153
156
Table 7.10 Capital expenditure on primary schools 2000 to 2012 (€m)
Table 7.11 Estimated per-pupil capital cost of provision of a place in schools
of various sizes
Table 8.1
Four sub-sets of small schools based on their distance to the nearest
school of the same type
Table 8.2
Summary table of the twelve sample areas
Table 8.3
Option A: overview of potential savings in twelve sample areas
Table 8.4
Option B: overview of potential savings in twelve sample areas
Table 8.5
Option C: Part 1 overview of potential savings in ten sample areas
Table 8.6
Option C: Part 2 overview of potential savings in two sample areas
Table 8.7
Two site federations: comparison of savings from cases involving two
Schools with those involving three schools
Table 8.8
Option A: Estimated national annual savings
Table 8.9
Option B: Estimated national annual savings
Table 8.10 Option C: Part 1 - estimated national annual savings
Table 8.11 Option C: Part 2 – estimated national annual savings
Table 8.12 Option C: Parts 1 & 2 – estimated national annual savings
158
159
169
171
174
177
182
183
184
187
190
192
192
193
Tables in Appendices
Appendix 6:
Table 6X 1
Table 6X 2
Table 6X 3
Table 6X 4
Table 6X 5
Table 6X.6
Details of exploration of amalgamation option
Overview of the 53 amalgamations
Amalgamation options: overview of net annual savings
Net annual savings from the single- site amalgamations
Per-pupil annual savings from the single-site amalgamations
Net annual savings from the two-site amalgamations
Two-site amalgamations: pupil distribution
Appendix 7:
Table 7X 1
Table 7X 2
Table 7X 3
Table 7X 4
Details of exploration of federation option
Summary of the federations (20 in total)
2-site federations – overview of net annual savings
2-site federations – overview of per pupil annual savings
2-site federations involving 3 schools – overview of net
annual savings
2-site federations involving 3 schools – overview of per-pupil
annual savings
2-site federations incorporating a closure
3-site federations – overview of annual savings
3-site federations – overview of per pupil annual savings
3-site federations – pupil distribution
Table 7X 5
Table 7X 6
Table 7X 7
Table 7X 8
Table 7X 9
- vi -
261
262
265
266
268
269
272
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
282
List of Charts
Chart 1
Overview of primary school straight closures, amalgamations and
new school recognition (2000 – 2012)
37
Growth in the primary pupil enrolment (2000 to 2011) and
projected enrolment for 2012 - 2014
40
Chart 3
Trend in the numbers of primary schools of various sizes (2000 – 2011)
43
Chart 4
Trend in the number of pupils in primary schools of various sizes (2000 – 2011)
44
Chart 5
Projections of enrolment at primary level (2012 – 2030)
48
Chart 6
County distribution of the 582 small schools (2009/10 enrolment)
56
Chart 7
Size and distribution of the 123 Gaeltacht primary schools
(based on 2009/10 enrolment & excluding island schools)
58
County distribution of the Church of Ireland’s primary schools
according to size (based on 2009/10 enrolment)
59
County distribution of the Presbyterian primary schools according to size
(based on 2009/10 enrolment)
60
Chart 10
County distribution of the three main categories of small school (2009/10)
63
Chart 11
Overview of distance (km) of the 582 small schools to nearest school
of the same type (based on 2009/10 enrolment)
100
Overview of the small schools according to their distance to nearest
school in their group (2009/10)
101
Overview of the number of Group 1 school within an 8km distance of
the small schools in Group 1 (2009/10)
107
Overview of the number of Group 2 school within an 8km distance of
the small schools in Group 1 (2009/10)
114
Overview of the number of Group 3 school within an 8km distance of
the small schools in Group 1 (2009/10)
121
Chart 16
Estimated per pupil cost in 2014 for schools from 1 teacher to 16 teachers
154
Chart 17
Estimated per pupil cost in 2014 of schools ranging from 10 pupils to 200 pupils
155
Chart 2
Chart 8
Chart 9
Chart 12
Chart 13
Chart 14
Chart 15
- vii -
List of Figures
Figure 1
Map of Ireland showing school planning catchment areas used
by Forward Planning Section
46
Figure 2
Percentage change in the population of electoral divisions 2006 – 2011
50
Figure 3
Population change by county 2006 -2011 (CSO Census 2011)
51
Figure 4
Map of Ireland showing the 423 Group 1 schools
103
Figure 5
Map of Ireland showing the 74 Group 2 schools
110
Figure 6
Map of Ireland showing the 51 Group 3 schools
117
Figure 7
Map of Ireland showing the 13 Group 4 schools
123
Figure 8
Map of Ireland showing the 9 Group 5 schools
126
Figure 9
Map of Ireland showing the 7 Group 6 schools
129
Figure 10
Map of Ireland showing the 5 Group 7 schools
132
- viii -
Executive Summary
This Value for Money Review of small primary school provision has been undertaken to assess
the current effectiveness and efficiency of provision and to examine the scope for alternative
organisational approaches to improve efficiency and effectiveness of provision. The context in
which the Review takes place is the requirement in recent years to provide significant additional
pupil places to cater for demographic growth and the likelihood that this will continue over the
medium term, with consequential demand for resources and a requirement to ensure that
existing resources are used as efficiently as possible. It is particularly important at a time of very
severe budgetary constraints that education programmes are delivered in the most efficient and
equitable manner and that any above-average premium in any area is minimised. Ireland has a
high proportion of primary schools relative to its population and has a high proportion of small
primary schools. The smaller schools have generally lower pupil numbers per classroom
teacher. As a result, small schools incur a higher level of per-pupil expenditure than that
generally spent on pupils in larger primary schools. For the purpose of the Review, the terms
of reference specified a small primary school as one with less than 50 pupils. This embraced
some 600 schools of 1- /2-teachers when the Review commenced. Subsequent to the
commencement of the Review, a Government decision was taken in December 2011 to make
changes to the small school staffing schedule on a phased basis, to be fully implemented by
2014. By 2014 the enrolment threshold to embrace all 1-teacher and 2-teacher schools will be
55 pupils. This threshold will bring the number of 1-teacher and 2-teacher schools to
approximately 690 schools by 2014. The recommendations of the Review are articulated in
terms of teacher size of school, rather than pupil size. The recommendations relate to all
schools of 1-teacher and 2-teachers and, where practical, to 3-teacher schools.
The Committee noted that the Department no longer establishes small schools and that its
current policy for new school establishment envisages the minimum size of a new school is a
single stream ( 8-teachers) and in many cases two streams, or even three streams.
Overview of primary school provision
The report provides an overview of primary school provision including a brief historical
overview, the legislative background, details on the location, size, type and numbers of primary
schools and costs of primary school provision. An outline is provided of the Department’s
policies in regard to new school establishment and the amalgamation and closure of existing
schools.
Primary education was prioritised in resource allocation decisions from the late 1990s onwards.
Additional teaching resources were provided in a wide range of areas, with particular emphasis
on special education. Additional capital resources were allocated to the upgrading of school
accommodation also. There were general improvements in the staffing schedule which
achieved reductions in average class sizes, and particular improvements in small schools.
Parental demand for increased choice of provision has resulted in more diversity in the
patronage of schools established in recent years.
Ireland has experienced a population boom in recent years and this is expected to continue.
The population increase has resulted in greatly increased primary school enrolment. In the
period 2000 to 2011 the primary school-going population increased steadily from 439,560 pupils
to 516,460 pupils. Based on birth data, the expected enrolment for 2014/15 is 549,000 pupils.
While it is not possible to be certain about trends beyond 2014, the most likely scenario is a
continued increase in enrolments at primary level to approximately 600,000 pupils by 2020 and
a gradual decline thereafter. Census 2011 showed a strong growth in population from the 2006
census. The commuter belt counties to the north and west of Dublin were the main areas of
population growth which, along with Wexford and Cork, all grew by more than 10 per cent. The
overall number of primary schools has remained relatively constant during the recent years of
strong pupil growth (from 1999 onwards) but the composition of the schools has altered
steadily over the years in terms of school size and the numbers of pupils catered for in the
various sizes of school. An imbalance in the organisational provision of schooling is evidenced
by an increase in pupil enrolment in schools of over 100 pupils that is almost seven times the
-1-
reduction in pupil numbers in an equivalent number of smaller schools of under 100 pupils. The
very significant prospective increase in primary school enrolment and the organisational
imbalance compels an examination of how to deploy limited and diminishing resources to
maximum effect.
Reasons for the relatively high proportion of small primary schools
The reasons for the high number of small schools relate to historical legacy reasons, population
density and geographical factors and, to a lesser extent, for minority linguistic reasons and
minority denominational groupings. A continuous policy of rationalising small schools into larger
units had been substantively progressed over a lengthy period until 1977 when the policy was
effectively reversed.
All counties have small schools but the majority of small schools are in the provinces of
Connacht and Munster.
In order to ensure that a primary school place is available when needed for every child, the
requirement to establish a new school is now identified by the Department based on
demographic need. The process of patron selection is separate and is governed by parental
demand and by the question of availability of diversity of provision in a particular area. A total of
109 new primary schools were established in the period 2000 – 2012 and over half of these
schools were in Leinster.
The counties with the highest numbers of small schools are Galway, Mayo, Donegal, Cork,
Clare, Roscommon, Kerry and Tipperary. Between them, these eight counties have almost
70% of all the small schools.
There are seven main groups of small schools. Following is a brief description of each group
and the numbers of schools with under 50 pupils in each group (based on 2009/10 enrolment
levels):
Group 1.
Group 2.
Group 3.
Group 4.
Group 5.
Group 6.
Group 7.
Catholic, English-medium, non-Gaeltacht
Church of Ireland
Gaeltacht
Island
Presbyterian
Catholic, Irish medium, non Gaeltacht
Multi-denominational
423 schools
74 schools
51 schools
13 schools
9 schools
7 schools
5 schools
582 schools
(72%)
(12%)
(8%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(<1%)
100%
Catholic, English-medium, non-Gaeltacht primary schools (Group 1) are widely distributed in
every county in Ireland. The small schools in Group 1 are also distributed in every county but
they are concentrated in particular in the counties of Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Clare,
Roscommon, Tipperary, Cork and Kerry.
There is at least one Church of Ireland primary school (Group 2), in every county. The small
Church of Ireland primary schools are found in twenty-two counties but are located particularly
in the counties of Donegal and Cork and, to a lesser extent, in the counties of Cavan,
Monaghan, Dublin and Wicklow.
Gaeltacht primary schools (Group 3) are located in seven counties, namely Donegal, Galway,
Mayo, Cork, Kerry, Meath and Waterford. The small Gaeltacht schools are in Donegal, Galway,
Mayo, Cork and Kerry.
The island primary schools (Group 4) are all small schools and are located on the eleven offshore islands of Counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Cork.
-2-
Presbyterian primary schools (Group 5) are located in four counties, namely Donegal,
Monaghan, Dublin and Louth. The small Presbyterian schools are located in Donegal and
Monaghan.
All-Irish, non-Gaeltacht, Catholic schools (Group 6) are located in every county. These schools
largely comprise the Gaelscoileanna sector. The seven small schools in Group 6 are located in
seven different counties.
Multi-denominational schools (Group 7) are located in twenty counties. Some of the multidenominational schools teach through Irish and therefore they are also Gaelscoileanna. The
five small schools in Group 7 are located in five different counties.
In the seven groups there is a total of 582 small schools (based on 2009/10 enrolment). These
schools would have 1 – 3 teachers. The vast majority would be 2-teacher schools. The numbers
of 1-teacher schools and 3-teacher schools within the total would be minimal. The changes to
the staffing schedule announced in 2011 will result in an increase in the numbers of 1-teacher
and 2-teacher schools. If the enrolment distribution of 2011 pertains in 2014, there will be
approximately 95 one-teacher schools and 595 two-teacher schools.
Response to public consultations concerning the Review
The standard procedures for the conduct of value for money reviews require that the views of
stakeholders be obtained. This was done by issuing a direct invitation to relevant interest
groups to provide a submission. The interest groups included the school patron bodies,
management bodies, teacher unions, National Parents’ Council, Irish language groups and
interest groups who operate in the area of social inclusion.
In addition to the direct letter of invitation issued to these groups, a general invitation for
submissions was posted on the Department’s website at the same time. A large response of
1,065 submissions was received. Many submissions expressed concerns about the Review.
Chief among the issues raised were:
• Importance of the small school to community
• Distance children have to travel to school
• Importance of the small Gaeltacht schools to the preservation and promotion of the Irish
language
• Importance of the small minority denominational school
Small schools, community and international comparisons
The Review sought to identify the impact that re-organisation would have on the communities
served by small primary schools. The question of community impact of small schools has not
been extensively researched, despite the large number of advocacy groups which argue for the
retention of small schools. A key issue is the differing interpretation of “small” in different
countries. The Committee considered that it was worth noting that, internationally, the most
frequently used definition of a small school is one with an enrolment of up to 100 pupils and up
to four teachers including the Principal, while that of a very small school is an enrolment of up to
50 pupils.
There is a lack of empirical research on the community impact of schools and much of the
research which has been conducted is based on small scale case studies, the findings of which
cannot be generalised widely beyond the area in which the research has been conducted.
In many countries, primary schools are considered in many communities, especially rural
communities, to be the heart of the community, particularly in the context of the loss of other
rural services. Rural communities in many countries are faced with the need to restructure their
school networks and close some smaller facilities. The Committee identified a number of
jurisdictions that have a relatively high proportion of small schools, namely parts of the United
Kingdom (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden
and Finland), Portugal and New Zealand. All of these jurisdictions have been making efforts in
recent times to re-organise their small schools. Each jurisdiction has its own unique
characteristics which would make direct comparison inappropriate. However, it is useful to
briefly examine their small school provision and their re-organisation efforts. Ireland and New
Zealand have a centrally managed school system. The other jurisdictions involve their local
authorities in the management of schools and consequently, they take a lead-role in re-3-
organisation. Of all the jurisdictions, Ireland has the highest proportion of schools with less than
100 pupils. In Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the potential impact which a school and
reorganisation of a school may have on a community is recognised as a factor which should be
taken into account when considering possible reorganisation.
Northern Ireland is engaged in its own exercise reviewing the viability of its schools at both
primary and post-primary level. It has determined already that its pattern of provision is
unsustainable educationally or financially and is actively engaged in a strategic area planning
exercise at primary and post-primary level. Scotland’s consultation process to be undertaken
prior to a school closure is enshrined in the Scotland Schools (Consultation) Act, 2010. The
Scottish government appointed a Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education in 2011 with
the task to review the legislation and its application and to make recommendations on best
practice on the delivery of education in rural areas. The Commission’s report has recently been
published in April 2013. Its recommendations are now to be considered by the Scottish
Government and the Scottish Commission for Local Authorities. Over three-quarters of all
primary schools in Scotland are in areas that are classified as “very remote rural areas”. The
Welsh Assembly’s updated guidance on school closure proposals states that there is no
presumption in favour of or against the closure of any type of school, including rural schools. In
Norway the number of schools of less than 100 students is diminishing while the number with
more than 300 students in increasing. Finland is engaged in a continuing steady programme of
rationalisation over the past twenty years or so. This is evidenced by an overall reduction of
some 2,000 schools in the period since 1990.There were 4,869 schools in 1990 and today, the
number is 2,870 schools. Portugal has engaged in a programme of re-organisation of its
primary schools over the past twenty years. The number of primary schools in Portugal has
dropped from 10,800 in 1988 to approximately 5,710 today. The policy has been to convert the
closed schools to community premises for social, cultural and economic projects. New Zealand
attempted an active policy of school re-organisation in the period 2002 -2004 but a moratorium
was announced on the process due to resistance. The issue is still on the New Zealand
Government agenda.
Conclusion:
There is no clear-cut answer to the impact of re-organisation of provision on the
communities served by small primary schools. Research on school-community
relationships is scarce, even in an international context. There is not a clear-cut
relationship between the closure or opening of a school and community. On the one
hand, it does not seem to automatically follow that closure will reduce sense of
community – much depends on what else is there. On the other hand, opening of a
new school does not guarantee sustaining sense of community because a new
school could be required to cater for an influx of incomers and with that comes a
dilution of the sense of community. Other jurisdictions with a high proportion of
small schools do generally consider the community impact of a closure, among a
range of other factors. These other jurisdictions which face similar challenges to
Ireland in regard to school organisation are engaged in the process of reorganisation, with varying degrees of success.
The Committee reflected on the experiences of other countries that have undertaken reorganisation of their primary school system or that are presently engaged in such reorganisation. Ireland, despite its limited geographical area, has a large number of small primary
schools and many of these schools are very close to each other or to similar larger schools.
The Committee acknowledged that the consultation process had indicated the importance
attached by local communities to the community role fulfilled by a school, particularly in a rural
community. However, the community role of a school must be viewed in the context that the
central role of a school is to provide education to children and this is the objective against which
the effectiveness and efficiency of provision should be assessed. The Committee took care to
adopt a reasonable approach so that any re-organisation model considered would not impact
negatively on parental choice of language or ethos, nor impose an unreasonable travel distance
on pupils.
-4-
In practical terms, this means that the Committee recommends that efforts towards reorganisation should be directed at small schools which are within an 8km (5 mile) distance of
another school of the same type. This approach should safeguard against the concerns
expressed about the Review and aims to be reasonable and practical for today’s Ireland.
Analysis of the value for money of small schools
Having determined the geographic spread of small schools and consulted with the public, the
Committee proceeded to assess small schools against the following Key Questions:
1) Do small schools provide more effective educational outcomes compared to large
schools?
2) Is it possible to have a more efficient organisation of provision that includes reasonable
pupil travel times and respects parental choice on school ethos and language of
instruction?
3) What is the cost premium of small school provision?
4) How could re-organisation be achieved?
Key Question 1: Do small schools provide more effective educational outcomes
compared to large schools?
The Committee was of the view that findings from international research regarding the impact of
school size on learning outcomes were inconclusive and not necessarily applicable in an Irish
context for a number of reasons, including the differences in scale and organisation of the
education system in other countries. It was decided to consider findings produced in a
domestic context by the Department’s Inspectorate and by the Educational Research Centre
(ERC).
The Department’s inspectorate holds inspection data and publishes inspection reports on all
primary schools. The VFM Steering Committee requested the inspectorate to analyse the
school-level quality data and to compare the inspection data for small schools with that of
schools of 50 pupils or more. The report from the Department's Inspectorate found that there is no
significant relationship between school size and the quality of teaching, learning and assessment in
schools.
The Educational Research Centre conducted an analysis of pupil achievement in English
reading and Mathematics Achievement in rural schools in the Schools Support Programme. It
found no evidence that small school size mitigated the effect of poverty on educational
outcomes.
Conclusion 1:
The Committee, based on research carried out by the Department’s Inspectorate and
the analysis of the Educational Research Centre, found that small schools of
themselves did not guarantee any more favourable educational outcomes.
-5-
Key Question 2: Is it possible to have a more efficient organisation of provision that
includes reasonable pupil travel times and respects parental choice on school ethos and
language of instruction?
Information on the travel distance to school undertaken by every individual primary school pupil
in the State is not readily available. In the absence of individual pupil information, it was
considered reasonable to measure the distance between schools within each of the seven
groups of small schools in order to identify the extent to which alternative options are available
to pupils within each group, which would not impact significantly on pupil travel distances. In this
regard, the Committee adopted an 8km (5 miles) maximum threshold as a reasonable distance
between the schools.
The analysis conducted showed that overall 81% of the small schools had a similar school
within an 8km distance (468 schools out of 582). This analysis is based on existing schools that
had less than 50 pupils in 2009/10. There were distinct findings in respect of each group as
follows:
Group 1 (Catholic, English-medium, non-Gaeltacht) had 397 small schools (94% of Group 1)
within an 8km distance of another Group 1 school. In most instances there was more than one
other Group 1 school within 8km. This is evidenced by the fact that in 64% of cases (270
schools) there were three (or more) Group 1 schools within an 8km distance. The relative
concentrations and proximity of Group 1 schools to each other suggest that some reorganisation is both possible and desirable.
The Committee has noted in particular that
rationalisation of schools within Group 1 offered prospects for significant reorganisation , whilst
ensuring that young children continue to easily access their educational entitlements.
Group 2 (Church of Ireland) had 24 small schools (32% of Group 2) within an 8km distance of
another Group 2 school. The majority of these (16 schools) had one other Group 2 school within
8km. The relative dispersal and distances between Group 2 small schools suggest that reorganisation possibilities are more limited than in Group 1 but that nonetheless there was scope
for organising 24 schools into more viable units, while respecting parental choice of ethos.
Group 3 (Gaeltacht) had 38 small schools (75% of Group 3) within an 8km distance of another
Group 3 school with similar classification in terms of language of instruction. In the case of 24 of
these schools there were two (or more) Group 3 schools within an 8km distance. In the other
14 cases there was one Group 3 school within an 8km distance. The concentrations of Group 3
schools suggest re-organisation could be possible in a number of cases, while ensuring no
diminution in the standard of the Irish language in the schools involved. The Committee
considered that the factors prevailing in this category of schools paralleled those in Group 1.
Group 4 (island) had 13 primary schools on the eleven off-shore islands. All are small schools
of under 50 pupils. Nine islands have a single school only so there is no other school within an
8km distance. Two islands each have two schools. In both cases, the two schools are within
4km of each other. This suggests that re-organisation could be a possibility in these instances
only.
Group 5 (Presbyterian) had 9 small schools. Two of them are within 5km of each other, which
suggests that re-organisation could be possible in those cases. The remaining seven schools
are more than 8km away from another Group 5 school.
Group 6 (Catholic, Irish-medium, non-Gaeltacht) had 7 small schools. Two of them were within
8km of another Group 6 school. Therefore, re-organisation could be a possibility in those cases
only. In the other five cases, the schools are more than 8km from another similar school.
Group 7 (multi-denominational) had 5 small schools. One of these was within 8km from another
Group 7 school but it was a newly established school in 2009/10 whose enrolment had grown to
over 150 pupils in 2011/12. No re-organisation possibilities suggested themselves in the multidenominational small schools sector.
-6-
Availability of school transport
The school transport scheme supports the transport of primary school pupils who reside more
than 3.2km from their nearest school, with eligibility now based on a strict distance criteria. The
scheme allows for choice on grounds of ethos and language of instruction. In a case where a
pupil is eligible for school transport but there is not the required minimum number of eligible
pupils in order to run a service within reasonable cost limits, a grant is paid directly to the pupil’s
family to assist towards the cost of private transport arrangements. Approximately 1,600
families receive such a grant annually. About 36,000 eligible primary school pupils availed of
school transport in 2011/12 and this represents about 7% of the primary school-going
population.
Educational and other benefits of re-organisation
The Committee also considered what might be a logical approach both in terms of school
organisation and teacher provision. On balance, the Committee concluded that a 4-teacher
school model which would provide for a teacher for every two class groups or standards is a far
preferable scenario to 1- or 2-teacher schools where a teacher might have to accommodate
between 4-8 class groups or standards. A 4-teacher school would still be quite a small school
(ranging from 86 pupils to 114 pupils) but it would provide more opportunities for social
interaction for both pupils and teachers, increased levels of pupil-supervision, result in less
difficulty in recruiting members to the Board of Management and result in availability of more
personnel on a daily basis to address child welfare/ protection concerns.
Conclusion 2:
Re-organisation is possible and desirable for small schools within 8km of another
school of the same type. There is no evidence that small schools provide any greater
educational benefits for their pupils which would offset their greater costs. Reorganisation could be achieved in the context of maintaining and building on
educational quality, keeping reasonable pupil travel distances, preserving parental
choice in terms of school ethos and
language of instruction and sustaining
community.
Key Question 3: What is the cost premium of small school provision?
Education is labour intensive. Current expenditure accounts for over 90% of all expenditure on
primary schools. The main component of current expenditure is pay (salaries and pensions of
teachers and non-teaching staff). The key driver for the appointment of staff in schools is
enrolments and the distribution of enrolments within schools. In general, as school size
decreases, so too does class size and the pupil-teacher ratio, with the schools in the smallest
size categories being generally characterised by having the smallest class sizes, the lowest and
most favourable pupil-teacher ratios. Teachers are allocated to a school based on a staffing
schedule which consists of a series of thresholds in pupil enrolment numbers. There can be
significant variation in the number of pupils per class teacher within each size of school,
particularly in smaller schools. Analysis of pupil numbers and costs is therefore conducted
based on mean enrolments for each teacher size of school.
This analysis takes account of the impact of the Budget 2012 measure to increase the staffing
schedule for 1- to 4-mainstream classroom teacher schools during the 2012 to 2014 period. It
is important to note that a significant element of the overall cost inefficiencies of small schools is
being addressed with the implementation of this budget measure. When fully implemented it is
estimated to yield savings of the order of €15m annually.
There are other financial adjustments underway which affect all schools, small and large.
Among them are:
-7-
•
•
•
A recruitment and promotion moratorium across the civil and public sector which
prohibits the filling of posts of responsibility in most circumstances, other than those of
Principal and Deputy Principal.
Supervision allowances and qualification allowances are currently not payable to new
beneficiaries.
A phased reduction of the overall amount of money paid to a school in the capitation
and ancillary services grants is taking place over a four year period 2012 – 2015, with
the reduction to be applied to the capitation element only.
Certain overheads apply to all schools but are not possible to disaggregate for application to
individual schools. Nevertheless, there is a direct relationship with these overheads and the
number of schools. These include the cost involved in administering and inspecting schools,
provision of services to schools such as psychological services, services from the National
Educational Welfare Board and the National Council for Special Education and the capital cost
of maintaining schools.
Capital expenditure accounted for 8% of all expenditure on primary schools in 2011. Substantial
capital investment took place in the period 2000-2008 resulting in new schools, extensions and
refurbishments/upgrading of the existing stock. The Department operated a Small Schools
Scheme in the period 2003 – 2007. During the years 2003 – 2007, 399 primary schools were
allocated funding under the Scheme, with a total allocation of over €181m for projects ranging
from the extension/refurbishment to complete building replacement in some cases. Many small
schools, which are in older buildings, benefited from these works and many of their buildings
are currently in reasonably good condition as a result. However, capital maintenance of a large
number of generally older small buildings is resource intensive on an ongoing basis. For the
foreseeable future the limited available capital resources will, of necessity, be prioritised
towards the provision of new schools and major extensions to meet demographic needs. The
scarcity of funds for maintenance/refurbishment will cause problems for the generally older,
small schools in the medium term.
The small 1-teacher, 2-teacher and 3-teacher schools are significantly more expensive and
more costly to run on a per-pupil basis than the larger schools. Taking account of the main
financial adjustments and based on expected mean enrolment levels for the various sizes of
school in 2014 (using 2011/12 enrolment data) an estimation exercise shows that a general
trend is evident of estimated per-pupil expenditure decreasing significantly from 1-teacher
(€6,870), to 2- teacher (€4,833), to 3-teacher (€3,582) to 4- teacher schools (€3,425). The
trend flattens from 4-teacher schools and above. The estimated per-pupil operating cost of a 1teacher school (€6,870) is more than twice that of a pupil in a 16-teacher school (€3,214). The
trend is illustrated in the following graph:
-8-
Estimated per pupil cost in 2014 for pupils in schools from 1- mainstream classroom teacher
to 16- mainstream classroom teachers
€14,000
€12,000
Per pupil cost €
€10,000
2014 estimated pupil costs Maximum
Expenditure per pupil
2014 estimated pupil costs Miniumum
Expenditure per pupil
€8,000
€6,870
2014 estimated pupil costs Mean Expenditure
per pupil
€6,000
Linear (2014 estimated pupil costs Mean
Expenditure per pupil)
€4,833
€3,582
€3,425
€4,000
€3,387
€3,213
€3,214
€2,000
€0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
No of mainstream classroom teachers in the school
It is important to note that within each teacher size of school there is significant variation in perpupil expenditure, depending on pupil enrolment. For example, a school with 21 pupils and a
school with 55 pupils are both allocated two teachers. The per-pupil expenditure in two-teacher
schools ranges accordingly from a maximum of €8,941 per pupil in the case of a 20-pupil school
to a minimum of €3,251 per pupil in the case of a 55-pupil school. The mean number of pupils in
a 2-teacher school was calculated at 37 pupils and based on that, the mean expenditure was
calculated at €4,833 per pupil.
It was considered useful to identify the cost premium associated with schools of 1 – 4
mainstream classroom teachers into the future when compared with a school of 8 teachers –
the minimum size which would be considered for establishment today. This premium was
calculated based on the full implementation of all the savings measures scheduled to be
implemented by 2014. The premium has been calculated at €44.8m per annum and over 80%
of it (€36.7m) will relate to schools of 1-teacher or 2-teachers (some 690 schools). 14% of the
premium (€6.5m) will relate to 3-teacher schools (some 470 schools) and the remaining €1.6m
will relate to 4-teacher schools (some 420 schools). In effect, €36.7m will be the minimum
additional annual cost of running 1- and 2- mainstream classroom teacher schools from 2014
onwards, over and above the average costs associated with an 8-teacher school (the smallest
size of primary school that would be established today).
Conclusion 3:
There is a cost premium per pupil attached to the current configuration of small
schools, due to the fact that the staffing schedule tends to operate favourably for the
majority of small schools and also due to favourable grant allocations. As a result the
provision of small schools of 1-teacher/2-teachers will carry an annual premium in the
region of €37 million post-2014 (and 3-teacher schools will carry an annual premium
of €6.5m). In addition, in the medium to long-term, small schools will incur greater
capital costs in future maintenance and upgrading. The Committee believes better
organisation of provision would result in greater efficiency in expenditure and a more
equitable and sustainable model for the future.
-9-
Key Question 4: How could re-organisation be achieved?
As a first step, the Committee believes the Department of Education and Skills should articulate
a clear policy on the preferred minimum size of existing schools. Such a policy would inform reorganisation plans at a local level. The Committee suggests a preferred minimum size of 4
mainstream classroom teachers as this would confer organisational, social and financial
benefits, and yet would still be regarded as a small school in international terms.
The main component of annual expenditure on schools is teachers’ pay. It follows therefore
that if savings are to be achieved from re-organisation there will be a diminution of the more
favourable teaching resources in the schools involved. The Committee sought to devise options
which would bring the per pupil expenditure in the small schools as close as possible to the perpupil level in an 8-teacher school.
Three principal re-organisation options were identified by the Committee, namely:
Increase the minimum viability threshold for school recognition
Option A:
Option B:
Amalgamation
Option C:
Federation
Re-organisation was considered only for small schools that are within an 8km (5 miles) distance
of another school of the same type.
The Committee recognised it was necessary to identify the scope for applying these three reorganisation options, the potential savings that might accrue and the practical implementation
issues that might arise Therefore it was decided to explore the options thoroughly in a number
of representative sample areas that have relatively high concentrations of small schools which
are between 2km and 8km of the nearest school of the same type. A thorough exploration of
options is more feasible where there are high concentrations of small schools.
Twelve such sample areas were chosen from the eight counties in which 70% of the country’s
small schools are located, namely Donegal, Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, Clare, Tipperary,
Cork and Kerry. For each sample area, the expected increase in primary school enrolment up to
2017 is identified using birth data. In seven of the twelve areas, enrolments are expected to
remain static. In three areas, a small increase is expected and in two areas a decline is
expected. A detailed profile was compiled of all schools in each sample area. The detail
included distance from nearest school(s) up to 8km away, enrolment in 2001, 2005 and 2010,
staffing and grants (calculated at 2010 and 2014 levels), level of accommodation, capital
investment in recent years and numbers of pupils in the schools currently eligible for school
transport. A map of each sample area studied is provided together with the list of options
identified for exploration in the area.
To ensure consistency, the costing model used in the exploration of options is the same model
used in identifying the costs for small schools. The model operated on the assumption that the
phased implementation of the staffing schedule adjustment for small schools was fully
implemented and the phased reductions in the capitation grants and ancillary services grants
funding had been fully applied. In essence, the options were explored on the basis of the
resources that the schools would have in 2014 if they maintained their current enrolment after
all the adjustments had been made. The per-pupil savings levels achieved by adopting the reorganisation options in the twelve sample areas were then utilised to estimate savings that
could be achieved by adopting these re-organisation options nationally. The aim of the exercise
was to identify what element of the estimated annual premium for 1-and 2-teacher schools
could be saved by re-organisation.
Following is an outline of the savings achieved in respect of each of the re-organisation options
in the sample areas and the conclusion reached in regard to potential savings from applying
these options nationally:
- 10 -
Option A: Increasing the minimum viability threshold for continued recognition was identified for
examination in the context of increasing the current 8-pupil threshold to three different levels,
namely 12 pupils, 20 pupils and 50 pupils. The Committee took the view that if a new minimum
viability threshold was adopted, the schools impacted at the new minimum threshold would
amalgamate with a similar neighbouring school.
The exploration of the sample areas found that a 12 pupil threshold had negligible impact in
terms of savings because there were so few schools under 12 pupils. If a 12 pupil minimum
school size was adopted nationally as a re-organisation option, the estimated annual saving
would be of the order of €0.2m.
A 20-pupil minimum threshold impacted on about 20% of the small schools in the sample areas.
In one quarter of these cases, amalgamation resulted in minimal savings. In the remaining
three-quarters of cases each amalgamation resulted in estimated net annual savings of about
€100,000. On a national basis, it is estimated that if a 20-pupil minimum school size was
adopted as a re-organisation option, the estimated annual savings would be approximately
€5m.
A 50-pupil minimum threshold impacted on all the small schools in the sample areas. Twentyeight possible amalgamations were identified and explored in regard to achieving a minimum
50-pupil threshold. In two instances, the amalgamations would actually cost additional monies
as they would not result in any staff saving but could potentially result in additional school
transport costs. In eight instances, there was a substantial estimated annual saving of about
€140,000 per amalgamation. In these cases, the amalgamation involved three schools or else
the amalgamation resulted in the saving of two teaching posts. In the remaining eighteen cases,
the amalgamations achieved annual savings of in the region of €70,000 per annum. Overall, if a
50-pupil minimum threshold was adopted in the sample areas, it would save in the region of
€3m annually in the sample areas.
In regard to estimating the national savings from a 50-pupil minimum threshold, a 50-pupil
threshold was initially chosen for exploration on the basis that it embraced all 1- and 2mainstream classroom teacher schools. This was prior to the adoption of the provisions of
Budget 2012. Under these provisions, the threshold to embrace all 1-and 2-mainstream
classroom teacher schools will be 55 pupils by 2014. It has been demonstrated that 1-and 2mainstream classroom teacher schools will carry an annual cost premium of some €37m post
2014. Therefore, in order to eliminate as much of this cost premium as possible, it would be
desirable to increase the continued minimum viability threshold to a minimum of at least 56
pupils (not 50 pupils) wherever possible. This is explored under Option B: amalgamation.
Option B: Amalgamation was identified for exploration on a single-site and on a split-site basis;
that the minimum enrolment of the amalgamated school would be 50 pupils (subsequently
proposed to be 56 pupils in light of Budget 2012). In the case of a split-site amalgamation, each
site would have to have a minimum of 20 pupils and an allocation was made for each site for
separate capitation and ancillary grant services funding in recognition of the fact that there
would be costs associated with running each separate building.
The sampling exercise adopted a range of cost scenarios in regard to uptake of school
transport. The range goes from a possible high-cost scenario of uptake of school transport by
pupils in a small school amalgamating to a neighbouring school to a low- cost scenario. The
high-cost scenario assumes 100% uptake and the low-cost scenario assumes 25% uptake. The
high-cost scenario is unlikely to occur in practice for three reasons. Firstly, not all pupils will
qualify for school transport as they may still be within 3.2km of the amalgamated school.
Secondly, not all that qualify will avail of the service. Thirdly, a recent Value for Money Review
of the School Transport Scheme (2010) identified that there is some spare capacity in the
school transport scheme which could see some of the eligible pupils accommodated without
additional costs. Nevertheless, it was considered important to identify the range of costs and
their impact on potential savings.
- 11 -
The level of per-pupil savings increased in tandem with the number of sites involved. Single-site
amalgamation of all 53 small schools in the sample areas yielded annual per-pupil savings
ranging from €858 to €1,061, dependent on uptake of school transport. Two-site amalgamation
of small schools in the sample areas appeared possible in the case of 31 small schools and this
yielded annual per-pupil savings ranging from €969 to €1,011, dependent on uptake of school
transport. Three-site amalgamation of small schools in the sample areas appeared possible in
the case of 9 small schools and this yielded annual per-pupil savings ranging from €1,174 to
€1,181, dependent on uptake of school transport. The sampling showed that single-site
amalgamations were identified as a universal possibility in the case of the small schools in the
twelve sample areas, whereas split-site amalgamations did not prove a possibility in all
instances. Split-site amalgamations were explored on the basis that each site would be
allocated separate minimum capitation and ancillary grant services payment. Even allowing for
this separate allocation, the split-site amalgamations yielded higher per-pupil annual savings,
mainly because they incurred potentially less school transport costs. They also have the benefit
that they incur lower capital costs in the medium term because the schools could continue in
their current buildings. In the longer term though, additional capital investment would be
required. A potential difficulty with a split-site amalgamation is that where a school is organised
over more than one site, depending on the spread of pupil numbers, a single staffing allocation
may give rise to differing class sizes between locations. Depending on the balance of numbers,
it may not be possible to avoid disproportionate class size arrangements in specific
circumstances. In those circumstances it would not be possible to adhere to any concept of
imposing a maximum class size in a particular location without resulting in a reduction of the
level of savings achieved. It must also be acknowledged that there would be practical issues
involved with managing a school across multiple sites. Overall, on balance because single-site
amalgamation proved a universal possibility in the sampling (whereas split-site was not) and
because equitable distribution of staffing resources is easier to achieve in one location, the
Committee chose the single-site amalgamation option as the general basis for identifying
minimum annual savings from the amalgamation option.
However, where split-site
amalgamation could take place to the satisfaction of the parties involved, it would represent an
additional bonus in terms of savings and the Committee would favour it.
The range of per-pupil savings figures from single-site amalgamation is used to estimate the
potential minimum national savings that could be achieved by applying amalgamation as a reorganisation option. In this regard, by 2014 when all the current financial adjustments are
completely implemented, based on the most recently published enrolment data (2011/12) there
will be 23,382 pupils in 690 schools with an enrolment of 55 pupils or less. The number of pupils
and schools modifies slightly every year but the numbers are not likely to vary significantly by
2014. Therefore, using the 2011/12 data as a basis for estimation and matching it to GIS
information in the Department, 78% of these 1- /2-mainstream classroom teacher schools (540
schools embracing some 18,238 pupils) will be within an 8km distance of another school of the
same type and there is therefore an option to amalgamate with a neighbouring school(s).
Amalgamation would involve an estimated 36,476 pupils in total, comprising 18,238 pupils from
schools of 1- /2-mainstream classroom teacher , 11,670 pupils from schools of 3-teachers/4teachers and 6,568 pupils from schools of 5-teachers and greater. Using the per-pupil savings
gathered in the sampling exercise, the total estimated annual savings arising from the
suggested amalgamation of schools of 1- /2-mainstream classroom teacher range from an
estimated €31.3m per annum to €38.7m per annum. The range of annual savings depends on
the level of uptake of school transport, with the lowest level of saving assuming that there would
be full uptake of school transport.
Achievement of a single-site amalgamation could, in many cases, necessitate some capital
expenditure on a once-off basis. In a small number of instances it could be the case that an
entirely new school building would be the most cost-effective solution. It is estimated that
amalgamation of all 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools which are located within
an 8km distance of another school of the same ethos and medium of instruction could
necessitate the provision of in excess of 400 additional classrooms and possibly construction of
ten new schools. The associated capital costs would depend on a range of factors such as site
suitability, condition of existing buildings and the ease with which the required additional
accommodation can be provided on a cost-effective basis. Taking account of these factors, it is
estimated that the capital costs to achieve the required amalgamations could range from
approximately €50m to €75m. Overall, if amalgamation was adopted as a sole re-organisation
option, it is estimated that it could result in a reduction of about 440 schools nationally.
- 12 -
Amalgamation is not confined as an option to areas where there are concentrations of small
schools. It would have widespread application and would involve schools of all sizes. For
example, two small schools could amalgamate or a small school could amalgamate with a large
school. Where an amalgamation achieves savings, the savings are calculated across the entire
pupil cohort of the newly amalgamated school so the savings are not just confined to the small
school.
It is important to note that each proposed amalgamation would have to be examined on its own
merits to verify that it makes financial sense as well as achieving other re-organisation
objectives. Most, (but not all), of the amalgamations explored in the course of the sampling
exercise, achieved savings. Positive savings arose where staffing efficiencies were achieved
and where no significant additional potential school transport costs arose. A minority of
amalgamations explored achieved minimal savings in running costs or even resulted in
additional annual running costs. These were cases where the amalgamation did not result in
any staff savings and/or incurred potential additional pupil transport costs.
Option C: Federation could be described as a form of amalgamation for small schools only,
where separate physical locations are retained but a single management structure is in put
place for the federation. It was explored on the basis that the minimum size of the federated
school would be 50 pupils (subsequently proposed to be 56 pupils in light of Budget 2012) and
that each site in a federated school would have to have a minimum of 20 pupils. Federation can
only be a possibility where there are two or more small schools of a similar type in close
proximity to each other. Where federation does not present as an option for a small school and
there is a school of a similar type within an 8km distance, the small school would have to seek
to amalgamate. Nationally, in the case of about 180 two-teacher schools the nearest school to
them within an 8km (5 mile) distance is another 2-teacher school of the same type as
themselves. These are essentially the schools that could federate and are the first part of the
Federation equation. The other approx 360 small schools could only re-organise through
amalgamation and they are the second part of the Federation equation. Therefore, in order to
estimate the national savings from federation, it is necessary to calculate the likely savings from
the cases where federation might apply (about 180 small schools) and add them to the savings
that might arise from amalgamation in the case of the other 360 schools.
The staffing schedule provides that when enrolment reaches 178 pupils, a school becomes
entitled to an administrative Principal. Up until that threshold, the Principal is a teaching
Principal. The Committee recognised that in order to achieve savings of any significance, the
appointment of staff to a federated school would have to be done on the same basis as for all
other schools, namely based on the combined enrolment of pupils in the sites of the federation
and this was the first scenario on which the federation model was explored. It was decided to
explore the federation option on two further alternative scenarios also.
The second scenario was to explore the federation model by analysing the savings that might
arise if staff were allocated to each site in the federation as if it were an independent school
according to the staffing schedule. The third scenario was to explore the model by appointing a
single administrative Principal to the federation irrespective of the total pupil numbers in the
federation. All the alternatives were super-imposed on each other to identify the savings and
the issues that might arise. In all three scenarios, the exercise allowed for the payment of the
minimum capitation grant and ancillary grant services payment to each site to fund its day-today running costs.
The twelve sample areas were all areas with a high proportion of small schools and federation
proved to be a possibility in ten of them. In two sample areas, federation did not prove to be
possible. In one of these areas, the schools were too small to realise the 20-pupil minimum
enrolment for each separate site. In the other area, the geographic distance between the
schools seemed too great for a federation to work. The federations identified ranged in size
from an average of 80 pupils (for a 2-site federation) to an average of 140 pupils (for a 4-site
federation). None of the federations identified in the exploration would have naturally reached
the threshold for the appointment of an administrative Principal (178 pupils). Where federation
was possible in the sample areas, the 2-site option was always a possibility. A 3-site/4-site
federation was not always a regular possibility. For this reason, the Committee chose the 2-site
- 13 -
federation as the general basis for identifying savings from the federation option. The highest
level of per-pupil savings was achieved by allocating staff based on the combined enrolment of
pupils in the sites of the federation and by maintaining the current threshold for the appointment
of an administrative Principal (178 pupils). In practice, this means that the federation would
have a teaching Principal. Depending on uptake of school transport, the exploration of
federation in the sample areas yielded annual per-pupil savings ranging from €1,811 to €1,923.
The estimated net annual savings ranged from €2.5m to €2.6m, depending on uptake of school
transport. The sampling exercise identified per-pupil savings of €1,251 from the 2-site
federation of two 2-teacher schools. Applying this figure in the case of the pupils in
approximately 180 schools where federation may be an option, results in estimated national
annual savings of €8.3m (Option C: Part 1). The remaining 360 1- /2-mainstream classroom
teacher schools would have to amalgamate and the estimated national savings range from
€20.9m to €25.8m (Option C: Part 2), depending on uptake of school transport. Therefore,
depending on uptake of school transport, the total estimated national savings from the
federation/amalgamation option range from €29.2m - €34.1m.
In regard to capital investment that may be required, it is estimated that the once-off capital
investment to implement Option C (Federation/Amalgamation) range from approximately €38m
to €56m. Overall, if Option C was adopted as a re-organisation option, it is estimated that it
could result in a reduction of about 450 schools nationally.
The Federation model minimises travel distances and it utilises the school buildings but will
incur higher capital costs in the future. There would be challenges for a teaching Principal to
manage a multi-site school. Where a school is organised over more than one site, depending
on the spread of pupil numbers, a single staffing allocation may give rise to differing class sizes
between locations. Depending on the balance of numbers, the sampling exercise showed it
may not be possible to avoid disproportionate class size arrangements in specific
circumstances. In those circumstances it would not be possible to adhere to any concept of
imposing a maximum class size in a particular location without resulting in a reduction of the
level of savings achieved.
Conclusion 4:
The Committee considers that the priority should be to eliminate as much as
possible of the €43.2 million premium for schools of 1-, 2- and 3-mainstream
classroom teachers. Amalgamation of all 1- and 2- mainstream classroom teacher
schools that are within 8km of a similar school would seem to be the most
practicable option in order to achieve the savings that are possible. Given the
relatively small pupil enrolment of the schools involved and the relatively short
pupil travel distances, the Committee considers that single site amalgamation offers
the best organisational approach in the longer term. However, where practicable,
split-site amalgamation and/or federation could be agreed also.
Summary of conclusions
There will always be a need for some small schools. Geographical factors alone (islands, very
remote areas) require this. Investment decisions of recent years were taken to provide a quality
education to every pupil in every location. The challenge is to maintain quality within funding
constraints. There are now very major demands on the education system to cope with current
increased pupil numbers and to cater for continued significant increase in numbers. New
schools are required in areas that currently have no school provision whereas the majority of
the small schools are located in areas of static or low population growth. The rate of increase in
pupil enrolment in larger schools (100 + pupil size) is almost seven times the rate of decrease in
- 14 -
pupil enrolment in an equivalent number of smaller schools (of less than 100 pupil size). This
differential in itself is a clear indication that the current system of organisation needs adjustment
in order to better utilise limited resources. Education is human resource intensive and there is
an onus to manage the resources as efficiently as possible while at the same time ensuring a
quality education for all pupils.
The research undertaken by the Department’s inspectorate showed that there was no
significant relationship between school size and the quality of teaching, learning and
assessment in schools. Community concerns about the importance of the school are
acknowledged. Nevertheless, this Value for Money Review was tasked with identifying the
scope for alternative organisational approaches to improve efficiency of provision and to identify
the potential implications. There is no evidence that small schools provide any greater
educational benefits for their pupils which would offset their greater costs The Review has
identified that schools of less than 4 teachers would continue post- 2014 to carry a significant
cost premium for the Irish education system in the range of €43.2m per annum and that almost
€37m of this will relate to schools of 1- /2-mainstream classroom teachers. This is difficult to
justify, given current economic and budgetary conditions. The Committee also considered that
very severe resource constraints make the cost premium of small schools hard to justify on
grounds of equity
The Committee identified that if current enrolment patterns continue into 2014, 78% of all 1- and
2-mainstream classroom teacher primary schools will be within an 8km distance of another
school of the same type. The Committee has explored re-organisation options in relation to
these schools, identified potential savings, costs and implications associated with the reorganisation. The view of the Committee is that re-organisation and rationalisation into more
viable units (by single site amalgamation unless wholly impracticable) would achieve substantial
savings and result in greater efficiency and equity of provision, while maintaining educational
quality and keeping very reasonable pupil travel distances.
The Committee considers its
proposals to be a reasonable compromise that will reduce the number of very small schools but
will still result in many schools that are still relatively small by national and international
standards. The following recommendations were informed by that analysis:-
Recommendations
Policy on preferred minimum school size
The Committee recommends that the Department should articulate a policy on a preferred
minimum size of existing schools. Such a policy would help to provide a clear strategic direction
for the Department and all stakeholders when making decisions that affect a school and its
community. The Committee suggests a preferred minimum size of school of four mainstream
classroom teachers. This minimum size has the benefit that it is the point at which the per-pupil
capita cost gets reasonably close to that of larger schools and it is also organisationally more
efficient, as it allows for the allocation of two class groups per teacher, and represents better
value for money.
Recommendation 1:
It is recommended that the Department articulate a policy on the optimum minimum size for
existing schools in order to provide a strategic policy direction for stakeholders. It would also
help inform the implementation of the re-organisation proposals contained in the
recommendations of the VFM Review.
The Committee recommends that any re-organisation should preferably achieve a minimum
primary school size of that required for the appointment of a minimum of four mainstream
classroom teachers (i.e. Principal plus three mainstream classroom teachers). This school size
confers significant organisational and curriculum delivery advantages and is also a costeffective school size in the use of scarce resources.
- 15 -
It is noted that, with effect from 2014, the enrolment threshold for the appointment and retention
of four mainstream classroom teachers will be 86 pupils.
Recommendation 2
It is recommended that all 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher primary schools located
within 2km (1.2 miles) of another primary school of the same ethos and medium of instruction
should amalgamate where appropriate with a neighbouring school, in order to preferably
achieve the enrolment threshold for at least 4 mainstream classroom teachers. The Department
should identify these schools and contact them with a view to making immediate re-organisation
arrangements.
Recommendation 3
It is recommended that 1- and 2- mainstream classroom teacher schools located between 2km
and 8 km (1.2 miles and 5 miles) from another school of the same ethos and medium of
instruction should re-organise in order to preferably achieve the enrolment threshold for at least
4 mainstream classroom teachers. All 3-teacher schools located less than 8 km from another
school of the same ethos and medium of instruction should also seek to re-organise to form
schools of at least 4 mainstream classroom teachers subject to further examination of the
practicalities involved in these cases. Re-organisation should be commenced from the 2013/14
school year on a phased basis and should be completed within the fastest feasible timeframe,
with the bulk of the implementation to be accomplished in the seven years from the 2013/2014
school year. Where feasible re-organisation options are not progressed, schools should be
subject to a phased withdrawal of preferential capitation rates and any preferential staffing
allocations.
Recommendation 4
It is recommended that the threshold below which recognition is withdrawn from small schools
would increase, with a number of different thresholds applying, depending on the proximity of
the small school to other schools serving the same community.
The VFM recommendation regarding the minimum enrolment thresholds below which
recognition is withdrawn would mean the following range would apply:
For schools within 8km of another school of the same ethos and medium of instruction, the
rd
minimum threshold should be set to the level at which the 3 teaching post is appointed (i.e.
Principal plus 2-mainstream classroom teachers). That threshold will be 56 pupils in 2014.
For schools more than 8km and less than 15km from another school of the same ethos and
medium of instruction, the threshold for withdrawal of recognition should be increased to the
nd
level at which the 2 teaching post is appointed (i.e. Principal plus one mainstream
classroom teacher). That threshold will be 20 pupils in 2014.
For schools more than 15km and less than 30km from another school of the same ethos and
medium of instruction, the minimum threshold should be increased to 12 pupils.
In the case of island schools which are the only primary school on the island and in the case
of small schools which are located more than 30km from the nearest school of the same
ethos and medium of instruction, the relevant pupil threshold should be considered on a case
by case basis by DES.
- 16 -
Recommendation 5
With an annual cost premium of some €43 million for schools of 1-, 2- and 3-mainstream
classroom teachers, the Committee recommends that, given the budgetary constraints and the
need to demonstrate as much equity as possible in the financing of primary expenditure, every
effort should be made to implement a phased programme of re-organisation in order to achieve
at least €30 million in annual savings in the fastest feasible timeframe, with the bulk of the
implementation to be accomplished in the seven years from the 2013/2014 school year. This
saving would be in addition to the €15m already being achieved as a result of the phased
adjustment to the staffing schedule for 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-teacher schools.
- 17 -
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter outlines the background to the Value for Money Review process, defines
the scope of the Review, discusses the role of the Steering Committee established to
guide the Review and outlines the terms of reference for the Review
1.1 Background to the Value for Money Review Process
The Department of Education and Skills (DES) has conducted this Value for Money
(VFM) Review of small primary schools under the Value for Money and Policy Review
Process. This process was introduced in June 2006 to replace the Expenditure Review
Initiative (ERI) which had commenced in 1997. The ERI had derived from the Strategic
Management Initiative (SMI) and the 1996 report Delivering Better Government, which
recognised the need for a systematic analysis of Government expenditure.
The Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative is a systematic process of evaluation
conducted by Government Departments and Offices under the guidance of the Value
for Money and Policy Review Central Steering Committee and the Departments of
Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform. Its objectives are to analyse Exchequer
spending in a systematic manner and to provide a basis on which more informed
decisions can be made on priorities both within and between programmes.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993 and the Public Service
Management Act, 1997 set the context for expenditure reviews in terms of the
achievement of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and the maintenance of
appropriate systems, practices and procedures for the purpose of evaluating
1
effectiveness.
1.2 Terms of Reference
The terms of reference for this review of small primary school provision are based on
the standard terms of reference which apply to all VFM reviews across the Civil
Service, but adapted as appropriate to suit this review. For the purpose of the review a
small primary school is taken to be one with less than 50 pupils. The agreed terms of
reference are to:
1.
1
Identify the relevant objectives of Government policy on primary school
provision and examine their current validity with a particular focus on small
primary schools. The analysis on the current validity of these objectives
will include (a) categorising current Irish primary school provision in terms
of school size and comparing this to international models (b) assessing the
locations of small schools relative to each other and to other neighbouring
schools and (c) examining national and international research on small
schools and optimal minimal school size at primary level
Expenditure Review Initiative First Formal Report to the Minister of Finance by the
Expenditure Review Central Steering Committee, for the period June 2002 to June 2004, page
41
- 18 -
2.
Define the relevant outputs associated with primary school provision (as
currently configured and with particular emphasis on small primary schools)
and identify the level and trend of these outputs.
3.
Examine the extent that the objectives of primary school provision (to be
identified in 1 above)
have been achieved and comment on the
effectiveness with which they have been achieved and compare the
effectiveness of the Irish approach relative to international practice
4.
Identify the level and trend of costs (current and capital) and staffing
resources associated with school size and thus examine the efficiency of
resource use.
5.
Examine the scope for alternative policy or organisational approaches to
improve efficiency and effectiveness of provision in terms of school size
and identify potential implications of such alternative arrangements
6.
Building on the outcome of this review, specify potential future performance
indicators in matters of relevance to school size
7.
Make recommendations as appropriate
1.3 Context for selection of topic
The Department of Education and Skills must ensure that resources, both financial and
human, are used in the most efficient way and that any capacity in the system is utilised
to maximum effect to ensure that Ireland’s primary education system can continue to
cater for the needs of all its pupils into the future. The objective of the review of small
primary schools is to assess the efficiency, effectiveness and examine the value for
money of these schools as currently configured and organised. The review should
examine the scope for alternative organisational approaches to improve efficiency and
effectiveness of provision.
The context in which the Review takes place is the requirement in recent years to
provide significant additional pupil places to cater for demographic growth. The
likelihood is that this will continue over the short to medium term, with consequential
demand for resources. The provision of additional pupil places is costly in both current
and capital terms.
These challenges have been exacerbated by current economic
conditions which are impacting on the Government’s ability to direct increased
resources to meet these growing needs.
Primary schools play an important role in their local communities. Ireland has a high
proportion of primary schools relative to its population and has a high proportion of
small primary schools. Approximately one fifth of primary schools have enrolments of
less than 50 pupils. Almost half of all primary schools enrol less than 100 pupils. Given
the pressure on funding and resources, this Review seeks to establish the value for
money being achieved from State funding of this element of provision. The Report of
the Special group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes (McCarthy
report) in 2008 proposed that this area merited examination.
1.4 Scope of Review
The Review focuses on primary school provision and specifically on small primary
schools, namely the subset of primary schools with less than 50 pupils. It examines
how primary school provision is organised in Ireland and compares this to organisation
- 19 -
in other countries. It identifies the current costs and resources associated with small
primary schools and compares them for various sizes of school. It examines the current
evidence in regard to the effectiveness of performance of the small school compared
with other sizes of school. Based on the evidence, it draws conclusions as to the scope
that exists for re-organisation of provision, the consequent implications of any reorganisation and makes recommendations as appropriate.
1.5 Steering Committee
Membership of the Steering Committee was as follows:
Mr William Soffe, Chairperson
Mr Seán Ó Foghlú, Assistant Secretary General, Planning & Building Unit, DES (to
February 2012)
Mr Kevin McCarthy, Assistant Secretary General, Planning & Building Unit, DES (from
February 2012)
Mr Tony Dalton, Principal Officer, Forward Planning Section, DES
Mr Hubert Loftus, Principal Officer, Schools Division, DES
Mr Martin Lally, Assistant Chief Inspector, DES
Ms Lorraine Finlay, Department of Education Northern Ireland
Mr Brendan Ellison, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (to June 2011)
Mr Dermot Nolan, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (from June 2011)
Mr Alan Dunne, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform
Mr Niall Cussen, Department of Environment, Community and Local Government
Mr Aidan O’Reilly, Department of Environment, Community, and Local Government (to
Sept 2011)
Ms Finola Moylette, Department of Environment, Community and Local Government
(from Sept 2011)
Ms Breeda Connaughton, Assistant Principal Officer, Central Policy Unit, DES
Dr Tony Gaynor, Assistant Principal Officer, DES
Ms Mary Carney, (Secretary to the Steering Committee), Assistant Principal Officer,
Forward Planning Section, DES
The Steering Committee agreed the terms of reference for the VFM review and these
were subsequently approved by the Secretary General of the DES and by the
Department of Finance.
The Committee met on eleven occasions in total.
- 20 -
Chapter 2: Overview of primary school provision
This chapter provides an overview of primary school provision including a brief
historical overview; the legislative background; the current number, location and size of
primary schools; the types of school; costs of provision; an outline of policy on
amalgamation, closure and establishment of new schools; increases in resource
allocation; growth trends in population and in primary school enrolment levels and
projected continued increase in pupil numbers.
2.1
Historical overview2
Ireland’s colonial past, religious affiliations of the population, cultural traditions,
economic developments and educational goals have combined to shape the complex
structure of our education system. The school system has traditionally been
characterised by the predominance of small schools, reflecting these influences. In
order to better understand the structure, a brief look at the history is useful. Following
is an outline of relevant developments in the system from the following junctures:
•
•
•
From formal establishment in 1831 until 1960,
From 1960 to 1990
From 1990 to the present.
2.1.1 Developments from 1831 until 1960
While the origins of Ireland’s nationally organised primary education system date from
1831, many religious orders and voluntary religious groups had been establishing
schools since the Relief Act of 1782 so that prior to the establishment of a national
education system in 1831, the island of Ireland had 11,823 schools, with 12,530
teachers and 564,000 pupils.
In 1831 the State became directly involved in education, when it withdrew grants from
the voluntary societies and instead established a Board of Commissioners for National
Education on which Catholics and Protestants were represented. The system was not
established by statute as the political climate at the time did not favour this. Instead the
ideals and structure of the system were set out in a letter from Lord Stanley to the Duke
of Leinster inviting him to become chairman of the new Board of Commissioners. This
letter, known as the Stanley letter, became the foundation document of the national
school system. It was intended that the system would be “a non-denominational primary
education system where children of all denominations would be educated together in
secular subjects and separate arrangements would be made for doctrinal instruction
according to different denominational tenets”.
However, by the end the 19th Century, the system had effectively evolved into a
denominational school system, which meant that faith formation formed part of the
school day. The only significant variation from ecclesiastical patronage was the model
school initiative in the middle of the 19th Century, where the Board of Commissioners
acted as patron. The model schools at the time were a pioneering initiative in that they
were established and fully funded by the state and run strictly on the multidenominational principle. However, they were not supported by the Churches and by
th
the end of the 19 Century their numbers had greatly reduced to the extent that their
original purpose diminished. Today, nine model schools remain and the Minister for
Education & Skills is patron of them. By the beginning of the 20th century the national
school had become a landmark institution in the life of the Irish country side, so much
so that every parish, and many townlands, had their own national school.
Aspects of section 2.1 Historical Overview were sourced from the publication "Irish Education
: Its history and structure" by John Coolahan. This source is gratefully acknowledged.
2
- 21 -
In 1922 the new State inherited a proliferation of small schools which were badly
equipped and badly attended. Of approximately 5,700 primary schools 80 per cent
were one or two teacher schools. At this time, many of the early schools were badly in
need of replacement or considerable renovation. This problem of funding the
maintenance of schools was a continual source of friction.
During the first decades of independence, education policy focused on reviving the Irish
language, culture, history and music, rather than on structural elements of the system.
While a threshold for amalgamating small schools with an average daily attendance of
less than 30 pupils operated in 1927/1928, which was raised to less than 40 pupils the
following year, due to economic conditions and competing priorities action taken was
minimal so that by 1944 an Office of Public Works survey reported that the condition of
national schools was “serious and critical”.
2.1.2 Developments from 1960 to 1990
Amalgamation policy of the 1960s
In 1966 the “Investment in Education” report was published. It was a major analysis of
the education system, initiated in 1962 by the Department of Education in cooperation
with the OECD. While the report is seen as the catalyst for change in relation to postprimary education in particular, its findings in relation to primary education also had farreaching consequences.
In regard to primary education, the report found that about two-thirds of primary schools
were one- and two-teacher schools situated mainly in the rural areas. Factors such as
density and mobility of population and separation by religion and gender had led to
large numbers of small schools. It concluded they were more costly in terms of
construction and operation. The report questioned whether the distribution of schools
was “the most suitable, satisfactory or economical method of providing primary
education” and argued for the rationalisation of national school provision, including the
merging of many of the small one- and two-teacher schools. At the time of the report,
about 85% of schools employed three teachers or less. While the report focused on the
economic reasons for reorganising small schools, they noted that the “weight of the
argument on the educational side will be such as to complement our arguments”.
Among the reasons given were the variation in pupil-teacher ratio, which, while
averaging at 34:1, varied from an average of 18:1 in one-teacher schools to an average
of 45:1 in schools of seven teachers or more; overcrowding; the poor condition of many
3
small schools ; the disproportionate cost of building and operating small schools; and
most significantly “..Small schools do not appear to provide any greater educational
benefits for their pupils which would offset their greater costs”. The report suggested
that the opposite was true and noted that “pupils in smaller schools, in particular, were
regarded as having a restricted curriculum available to them”. The Minister for
Education reported to the Dáil in 1965 that the educational attainment of pupils of oneand two-teacher schools was on average two years behind that of pupils in larger
schools
Following publication of the report, the Minister for Education announced a policy for
rationalisation of primary school provision. A general policy of non-replacement of oneteacher schools which had already been pursued for many years was now extended to
two-teacher schools and steps were to be taken also to speed up the process of the
amalgamation of small schools in general and the establishment of central schools, a
process which was rendered feasible in the context of improved travel facilities. The
3
The first State grant for the maintenance of national schools was not made until 1962. In 1964
the Investment in Education team found that the Board of Works had declared 22 per cent of
national schools “obsolete” and 40 per cent “non-effective”.
- 22 -
introduction of the post-primary transport scheme in 1967 altered the picture for primary
school transport also. Following the establishment of the free transport scheme for
post-primary pupils, all those duties in regard to primary transport formerly carried out
by the school manager were transferred to C.I.E. and the services were made free of
charge, apart from a voluntary nominal local contribution. Accordingly, where schools
were being discontinued, arrangements were made for the provision of a suitable State
support transport scheme. The availability of school transport and the increasing
availability of private cars tended to reduce the hardship which long walks to school in
harsh weather might otherwise have entailed. Parents were briefed on the educational
advantages offered by the larger type of school to which access would be provided by
way of the transport scheme. Where the transport service was established to cater for
children whose school had been closed and amalgamated with another school, no
distance condition would apply. Where, however, the service was set up to bring
children of a particular locality to their nearest school a distance requirement applied.
In the case of a child under 10 years of age, they had to live more than two miles from
the school. For a child over 10 years of age they had to live more than three miles from
the school. The aim of the amalgamation policy was to afford improved educational
opportunity and to achieve a more equitable distribution of teachers.
Many local communities campaigned against the amalgamation policy as the local
school was considered to be one of the focal points of the community and any closures
were seen as symbolic of the decline of the community. One of the main criticisms of
the amalgamation policy during the sixties was the lack of adequate consultation with
the local community about planned closures
During the period 1962 – 1979 the number of one- and two-teacher schools reduced
from 3,194 to 1,168. In the decade 1969 to 1979 the overall number of schools fell
from approximately 4,225 to 3,224 schools.
Change in amalgamation policy (1977)
In 1977, the Minister for Education announced that the Department “will no longer force
the amalgamation of small schools into larger units” and announced grants to
modernise small schools. The 1980 White Paper on Educational Development stated
that the purpose of amalgamation was not to reduce the number of teachers but to
organise the teachers into larger units that could contribute to a progressive
redistribution of teachers. The Programme for Action in Education (1984-1987)
confirmed that the policy of amalgamation still remained but that full consultation with
the school community should take place.
From the mid-eighties, in sharp contrast to the sixties, Department policies on
rationalisation were more compatible with those of the religious orders who
acknowledged the need to reassess their role in the provision of education in response
to changing circumstances and now accepted the demand for co-education. The
Conference of Major Religious Superiors of Ireland issued a report on rationalisation in
1986, which emphasised the need for planning, coordination and consultation. In 1988,
the Department of Education, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) and the
Catholic Primary School Management Association (CPSMA) came to an agreement on
the procedures, consultation process and staffing arrangements to apply in the case of
amalgamation, which remains in force. The amalgamations effected during the 1980s
tended to occur among larger schools.
- 23 -
2.1.3 Developments from 1990 to the present
The 1991 OECD review of Ireland’s national policy for education, while acknowledging
the benefits and importance of small schools, recommended the amalgamation of small
schools in order to form four-teacher primary schools. The Review team also
recommended that arrangements should be made for small schools to share resources
and facilities.
The following year, the Green Paper, “Education for a Changing World” was published.
The Green Paper supported the OECD view and proposed that the overall aim would
be to maximise the number of urban schools of eight teachers or more and rural
schools of four teachers or more as this would “facilitate the provision of remedial and
other specialist services in those schools and the development of backup and support
services for their teachers”. It proposed the idea of closing smaller schools under this
critical size. This caused concern among schools of three teachers or less and
particularly within the Protestant community. However, this was alleviated somewhat
by the Minister’s statement in June 1993 that closures would only be implemented as a
result of consultation and agreement.
There was considerable debate on small school amalgamations at the 1994 National
4
Education Convention . The report of the Convention notes that many representatives
cited the benefits of small schools and had been critical of the policy of amalgamation.
The report acknowledged, however, that in the context of projected demographic
decline, rapid decline in the number of clergy in teaching positions, new curricular
policies and the rapidly increasing significance of education for the development of
society, larger schools would be required. It was recommended that rationalisation
measures be conducted in a planned and coherent manner, and that as school size is
not perfectly correlated with curricular range and effectiveness, educational quality
rather than school size should be the main criterion for reorganisation…..“There is
not…an argument for amalgamating smaller schools into larger units unless the
education provided is going to be more effective for the majority of pupils affected”
The report noted that a blanket decision recommending the closures of all small
schools below a specific threshold would not be appropriate.
The 1995 White Paper, “Charting our Education Future”, recognised that issues around
the provision of appropriate school facilities and school size were complex and evoked
deep feelings, particularly at a local level. The White Paper confirmed that “educational
quality will continue to be the main criterion in considering primary school size, taking
into account both the needs of local communities and wider social and cultural factors”.
Among the principles endorsed include:
4
•
As enrolment declines and prior to allocating any significant capital
investment, the rationalisation of primary school facilities will continue to be
critically examined;
•
Where there is appropriate surplus accommodation in an adjoining parish,
additional classroom accommodation will not be provided;
•
Decisions on school provision and reorganisation must be “widely
perceived to be cost-effective, equitable and reasonable and to be based
on a rigorous evaluation of requirements and needs, at both regional and
national levels”;
The National Education Convention took place over a ten day period in October 1993. It
brought together representatives from forty two organisations – educational bodies, the social
partners and the Department of Education – to engage in structured and sustained discussion
on key issues of educational policy in Ireland. School rationalisation was among the topics
discussed.
- 24 -
•
“The sensitivity and complexity of the issues raised require, in each
instance, a broadly based agreement that the decision-making process has
allowed for proper consultation and has adequately considered all the
relevant issues"
The White Paper recommended the establishment of a Commission on School
Accommodation (CSA) to conduct detailed studies to support policy formulation on the
re-organisation of school provision. This Commission produced a range of reports and
Area Development Plans during its period of existence (1996 to 2011). Included was a
report was on the amalgamation of first level schools (2001). This report provides an
analysis of amalgamation-related issues and proposes a framework for a model to
govern the amalgamation process. This model aims to “ensure the best outcome for
the pupils; respect the authority and interests of all the partners; promote harmony and
support for the educational endeavour”. The model includes a pre-decision stage
involving feasibility discussions and consultation with the school community, the
decision stage informed by consultation and the post-decision stage involving the
closure of existing schools and the opening of a new school. The report reasserts that
“the objective of an amalgamation is to provide an enhanced educational environment
for the pupils with an efficient supply of resources” and confirms that the decisionmaking authority for amalgamation belongs to the patron subject to the approval of the
Minister for Education & Skills. The CSA noted that amalgamations which occurred
during the nineties were in response to a number of factors such as the need for school
buildings to be refurbished; preference for co-education; and to provide enhanced
facilities to facilitate improved curriculum provision.
Demand for increased choice of provision
In terms of school organisation, a key aspect to note is parental demand for increased
choice in provision over the past thirty years or so. Up until the 1970s, Irish schools
catered for a relatively homogenous group of pupils and were denominational in
character. By the end of the 1970s, parents had begun to demand alternative choice in
provision, mainly for multi-denominational education and all-Irish education. This led to
the establishment of bodies such as Educate Together and Foras Pátrúnachta Na
Scoileanna Lán Ghaeilge Teo, that are now recognised school patron bodies.
All-Irish schools outside the Gaeltacht areas (gaelscoileanna) can be denominational,
multi-denominational or inter-denominational depending on local circumstances. An
inter-denominational school is one which is under joint denominational patronage
(usually Church of Ireland and Catholic).
1978 saw the establishment of the first multi-denominational school. In subsequent
5
years, Ireland has become a signatory to a number of international conventions which,
inter alia, have resulted in a call for the provision of more multi-denominational and nondenominational schools and this trend is continuing. In general, the approach in multidenominational schools is to facilitate faith formation on school premises outside of
school hours. The State is piloting a new initiative in multi-denominational education in
a small number of schools in which multi-belief religious education programme is
delivered during the school day. This initiative, known as the Community National
School model, is being piloted in six schools. The first two schools were established in
2007 in Co. Dublin, a further three schools were established in 2010 in Counties Dublin,
Meath and Kildare and the final school was established in 2012 in Dublin. The schools
are all located in areas of population growth.
5
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified 1989), Council of Europe
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ratified 1999), Convention on
the rights of the Child (ratified 1992) and the Convention for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination (ratified 2000)
- 25 -
There is also a strong growth in demand for Irish- medium education outside the
Gaeltacht areas. In the thirty year period 1978 to 2008 the number of gaelscoileanna
grew six fold from 23 schools to 139 schools. The ethos of gaelscoileanna has also
become more diverse. In 1978 all the gaelscoileanna were Catholic in ethos. Thirty
years later in 2008, 20% of gaelscoileanna were either multi-denominational or interdenominational and 80% were Catholic. In response to the growing parental demand
for choice in provision, the CSA devised criteria and procedures for the recognition of
new primary schools (published in 1998).
While there has been significant demand for increased choice of provision it is also
important to note that not all new schools have been multi-denominational or all-Irish
schools. Where the preferred choice of a community was for denominational education,
new denominational schools were established. In this regard, Table 2.5 shows the
current numbers of primary schools by patron body and Table 2.9 gives an overview of
the patronage of the 109 new schools established in the period 2000 to 2012.
Resources allocated to primary education
Primary education was prioritised in resource allocation decisions from the late 1990s
onwards. Additional teaching resources were provided in a wide range of areas, with
particular emphasis on special education. Additional capital resources were allocated
to the upgrading of school accommodation also.
In the period 1997 to 2006 some 5,000 additional teaching posts were created in
primary schools. These were used mainly to provide additional resources for
disadvantaged pupils, the integration of children with special needs into mainstream
school, the provision of supports for children for whom English was not their first
language, improvements in the pupil teacher ratio, reductions in large class sizes and to
meet a relatively small natural increase of about 5,000 in overall pupil numbers.
•
•
•
•
•
•
6
In the area of special needs teaching, in 1998 there were approximately 1,500
teachers in primary schools working directly with children with special needs,
including those requiring learning support. By 2006, this number had increased
6
to over 5,000 teachers.
In regard to Special Needs Assistants, in 1998 there were 300 Special Needs
7
Assistants in primary schools. By 2006 this had increased to over 6,000.
There were improvements in the staffing schedule which achieved reductions in
average class sizes.
Included in the general improvements was a reduction in the threshold for
appointing a second teacher in one-teacher schools. This threshold was 28
pupils in 1996/7. It was progressively reduced down over the four subsequent
years (to 25 pupils in 1997/98, to 18 pupils in 1998/99, to 14 pupils in 1999/00
and to 12 pupils in 2000/01. It remained at 12 pupils from 2000/01 school year
8
until 2011/12 ).
In regard to capital expenditure, in the period 2000 – 2005 there was €2bn
investment delivered in 6,500 school building projects. At primary level this
delivered 67 new schools, 288 large –scale refurbishment/extension projects
and over 4,500 small scale projects, involving upgrading works and small scale
extensions.
Two particular capital expenditure schemes benefited the smaller schools.
These schemes, known as the Small Schools Scheme and the Permanent
Accommodation Scheme, involved the devolution of funding to the local school
In 2012/13 there are 3,029 whole time equivalent Resource Teacher posts to support children
with low incidence special educational needs and 4,138 whole time equivalent Learning
Support Teacher posts to support children with high incidence special educational needs.
7
In 2012/13 there are 6,196 whole time equivalent Special Needs Assistant posts in
mainstream primary schools.
8
A phased increase in the threshold was announced in the 2012 budget. The increase will
commence in September 2012 when the threshold will be 14 pupils. It will increase to 20
pupils by September 2014.
- 26 -
•
2.2
management. This allowed the schools to undertake smaller scale building
works such as the refurbishment of existing buildings, the provision of small
extensions or the replacement of temporary accommodation (such as
classrooms or resource rooms) with permanent accommodation.
During the years 2003 to 2007, specific funding was set aside from the overall
capital allocation to fund these schemes. Under the Small Schools Scheme, a
total of 399 primary schools were allocated a total of over €181m for projects
ranging from the extension and refurbishment of 2, 3 and 4 classroom schools
to the building of new 2 and 3 classroom schools. Under the Permanent
Accommodation Scheme, a total of 335 primary schools were allocated funding
of €114m.
Legislative background
Bunreacht na hÉireann (1937) contains detailed constitutional rights and duties in
regard to education as set out in Articles 42 and 44.2.4°.
Article 42.3 provides that:
‘The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful
preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to
any particular type of school designated by the State’.
Article 42.4 provides that:
“…the State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to
supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational
initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational
facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents,
especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.”
Article 44.2.4° provides that:
“Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between
schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be
such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school
receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that
school.”
Article 8(1) of the Constitution declares Irish as the first official language.
State-funded primary schools, also known as national schools, have to comply with the
rules and regulations set out by the Department of Education and Skills. These rules
and regulations are contained in the “Rules for National Schools”, (published in 1965)
and subsequent updating circulars. The Rules for National Schools also give explicit
recognition to the denominational character of primary schools.
The Education Act, 1998 provides generally for all education and ensures accountability
within the system. A key function of the Act is to ensure that the education provided
respects the diversity of values, beliefs, languages and traditions in Irish society and is
conducted in a spirit of partnership between schools, patrons, students, parents,
teachers and other school staff, the community served by the school and the State.
The Act provides for the recognition and funding of schools and their management
through boards of management; it provides for an inspectorate of schools; to provide for
the role and responsibilities of principals and teachers; to establish the national council
for curriculum and assessment and to make provision for it.
- 27 -
The Education Welfare Act 2000 provides that all children shall attend school by the
age of six years. The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, 2004
(EPSEN Act) makes provision for the education of people with special educational
needs, to provide that education wherever possible, in an inclusive environment with
those who do not have such needs.
2.3
Number of primary schools and pupils
Table 2.1 outlines the number of primary schools and pupils in the period 2009 -2011.
Table 2.1
No of primary schools aided by the Department (2009 – 2011)
2009
2011
No. of
Schools
No. of
pupils
No. of
Schools
No. of
pupils
No. of
Schools
No. of
pupils
Total
3,295
505,998
3,305
509,652
3,300
516,460
Ordinary primary
Schools
3,165
499,093
9
3,165
502,474
3,159
509,040
Special Schools
130
140
7,178
141
7,420
Primary schools
9
2010
6,905
The figure of 499,093 includes 9,083 special class pupils in ordinary primary schools
- 28 -
2.4
Size of primary schools
Table 2.2 outlines the distribution of primary schools by school size in 2009/10.
Table 2.2
School size
Pupil distribution in primary schools 2009/10
No. of
ordinary
class
pupils
No. of
teaching
teachers
Number of
schools
Average
pupils per
class
teacher
10
14.9
2,926
852
21.6
117,327
4,876
824
24.1
200 – 299 pupils
117,692
4,647
490
25.3
300 – 499 pupils
118,619
4,580
305
25.9
54,806
2,051
90
26.7
490,010
20,317
3,165
24.1
Less than 50 pupils
18,446
1,237
50 - 99 pupils
63,120
100 – 199 pupils
500+ pupils
Total
604
Source: Statistics Section, Dept of Education & Skills statistical report 2009/10
Table 2.4
The data in this table excludes pupils with special needs in mainstream primary schools
and their teachers as well as pupils in special schools.
Comparing 2009/10 with 2011/12, the number of schools of less than 200 pupils has
dropped by 82 schools whereas the number of schools of more than 200 pupils has
increased by 56 schools. This can be seen by comparing the data in Table 2.2
(2009/10) and Table 2.3 (2011/12) below.
10
For the purpose of this table, Statistics Section did not include special class pupils. However,
for the purpose of the VFM study, special class pupils are included as they are integrated with
the ordinary class pupils. By including the special class pupils, the number of schools with less
than 50 pupils reduced from 604 schools to 598 schools in 2009/10. In the meantime from
31/8/2010 to 31/8/2012 twelve of the 598 schools have closed and six of them have
amalgamated. The closures took place in 2010 (4 closures), 2011 (2 closures) and 2012 (6
closures). In regard to the amalgamations, two small schools amalgamated with a bigger school
(greater than 50 pupils). In regard to the remaining four small schools which amalgamated, two
of them amalgamated with each other in 2011 and the amalgamated school has an enrolment
of less than 50 pupils. Similarly two of them amalgamated with each other in 2012 and the
resultant school is also a school of less than 50 pupils. The net effect of the
closures/amalgamations that have taken place since 2009 is that of the 598 schools that had
less than 50 pupils in 2009/10, there were 582 of them in existence at the commencement of
the 2012/13 school year.
- 29 -
Table 2.3 Pupil distribution in mainstream primary schools 2011/12
School size
No. of
ordinary
class
pupils
No. of
teaching
teachers
Average
pupils per
class
teacher
Number of
schools
Less than 50 pupils
18,230
1,221
599
14.9
50 - 99 pupils
61,854
2,880
824
21.5
100 – 199 pupils
113,196
4,620
795
24.5
200 – 299 pupils
121,519
4,703
506
25.8
300 – 499 pupils
131,465
5,074
338
25.9
59,954
2,218
97
27.0
506,218
20,716
3,159
24.4
500+ pupils
Total
Source: Dept of Education and Skills Statistical Report 2011/12 Table 2.4
The total number of pupils in primary schools in 2011/12 was 516,460 pupils composed
as follows:
506,218 pupils in mainstream primary schools
2,822 pupils in special classes integrated in mainstream primary schools
7,420 pupils in special schools
516,460 Total
- 30 -
Table 2.4 Overview of the size of primary schools (up to 100 pupils) 2009/10
No. of
pupils
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
11
No. of
schools
0
0
0
0
2
3
1
4
4
0
2
11
7
8
6
8
7
13
15
19
14
11
16
16
18
19
24
20
14
19
22
25
22
20
17
25
29
17
21
20
14
15
10
10
9
13
4
7
17
Cumulative
Number of
schools
0
0
0
0
2
5
6
10
14
14
16
27
34
42
48
56
63
76
91
110
124
135
151
167
185
204
228
248
262
281
303
328
350
370
387
412
441
458
479
499
513
528
538
548
557
570
574
581
598
No. of
pupils
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
No. of schools
27
17
17
18
19
20
21
11
15
12
16
23
21
20
17
17
15
21
20
9
22
15
13
18
13
14
15
16
7
2
7
23
24
20
20
14
22
19
20
21
17
15
15
11
24
22
27
12
14
11
13
11
Cumulative
Number of
schools
625
642
659
677
696
716
737
748
763
775
791
814
835
855
872
889
904
925
945
954
976
991
1004
1022
1035
1049
1064
1080
1087
1089
1096
1119
1143
1163
1183
1197
1219
1238
1258
1279
1296
1311
1326
1337
1361
1383
1410
1422
1436
1447
1460
Source for data is the Statistics Section, Dept of Education & Skills. The schools in question
are ordinary national schools and the pupil numbers include special class pupils
- 31 -
A comparison of the latest published figures (2011/12) with the 2009/10 figures shows that
there has been no significant change in the numbers of small schools, as follows:
2.5
•
In 2011/12, the number of schools with less than 20 pupils is broadly similar to
2009/10, when there were 91 schools of less than 20 pupils. There may seem to
be a small increase in 2011/12 because there were 103 schools of less than 20
pupils. But, allowing for the six closures that took place with effect from 31/8/12,
the reduction of four small schools as a result of the six amalgamations and one
newly established school which has since grown rapidly, the number in 2011/12
is effectively 92 schools, which is almost the same as in 2009/10.
•
In 2011/12, the number of schools with less than 50 pupils is also broadly similar
to the number in 2009/10. In 2009/10 there were 598 schools with less than 50
pupils. By the start of the 2012/13 year, sixteen of these schools had either
closed or amalgamated so effectively there are now 582 schools of less than 50
pupils which had less than 50 pupils in 2009/10. In 2011/12 there were 599
schools with less than 50 pupils. But since the end of the 2011/12 school year
the number has reduced by 11 schools to 588 schools due to closures (6),
amalgamations (4) and developing school (1).
•
There is a small decrease in the number of schools of less than 100 pupils in
2011/12 compared with 2009/10. In 2011/12 there were 1,405 schools of less
than 100 pupils (allowing for the closures/ amalgamations/ new school referred to
above). This is a decrease on 2009/10 when there were 1,447 such schools.
Categories of primary school
The Department of Education and Skills currently classifies primary schools as
denominational, inter-denominational and multi-denominational offering education
through the medium of English or Irish (all-Irish schools in Gaeltacht areas and allIrish schools outside of Gaeltacht areas).
Table 2.4 outlines the number of primary schools under the various patron bodies.
It can be seen that almost 90% of the schools are under Catholic patronage,
embracing 92% of all primary school pupils.
- 32 -
Table 2.5
12
2011/12
Number of mainstream primary schools by patron body
No of
primary
schools
Patron Body
Catholic
13
Church of Ireland
14
% of total
schools
Approx
% of total
pupils
No. of
pupils
2,826
89 %
460,000
approx
90%
180
5%
15,000
approx
3%
Presbyterian
17
600
Methodist
1
90
Jewish
1
81
Islamic
2
430
Quaker
1
100
An Foras Pátrúnachta na
Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge Teo
59
John Scottus Educational
Trust Ld
12,000
approx
2%
2%
18,000
approx
4%
100%
509,038
100%
1
Lifeways Ireland Ltd
2
Educate Together Ltd
(national patron Body)
51
Schools in Educate Together
network with their own
patron body
14
Minister for Education & Skills
1%
15
14
Total
3,169
12
This table does not include the 140 Special Schools but it does include Special Class pupils
integrated into primary schools. The number of pupils per patron body has been approximated
13
Eighty one of these schools are also gaelscoileanna.
14
One Church of Ireland school has shared patronage with the Methodist Church, four schools
have shared patronage with the Presbyterian Church and three schools have individual patron
bodies
15
The 14 schools of which the Minister was patron in 2011/12 consist of nine model schools
and five Community National Schools. In regard to the Community National Schools,it has been
planned that the VECs will be the patron. A further Community National School was established
in the 2012/13 school year.
- 33 -
2.6
Financial cost of primary education provision
The estimated annual cost to the State for the provision of primary education is in the
order of €3.3 billion. The main components of the cost are indicated in Table 2.6. It
can be seen that current expenditure accounts for 90% of the overall budget.
Table 2.6
Statement of expenditure from public funds on first-level education during
thefinanaicl year ended December 2011
% of
gross
total
0.9%
31,078
CURRENT EXPENDITURE:
€ (millions)
Department pay and other overheads
Pay and Operating Costs
Salaries etc. of Teachers
Superannuation
Capitation / Ancillary Grants towards operating costs of
National Schools
Grants towards employment of Non-teaching staff
including Special Needs Assistants, Caretakers &
Clerical Officers
School Transport
Other Grants and Services
Special Education Initiatives
Special Education Council
National Education Psychological Service
National Council for Curriculum & Assessment
Teachers In-Career Development
School's ICT - Current
Miscellaneous Grants and Services
TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURE
2,050,404
487,029
57.7%
13.7%
186,933
5.3%
302,144
8.5%
113,179
3.2%
2,905
5,023
10,835
1,413
10,070
6,727
52,491
3,260,230
91.8%
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
Building, equipment and furnishing of National Schools
Schools information and communication technologies
activities
Department overheads - capital expenditure
Educational Disadvantage (Dormant Account Funding)
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
GROSS TOTAL
DEDUCT RECIPTS
NET TOTAL
- 34 -
289,426
345
740
15
290,526
8.2%
3,550,756
(251,903)
3,298,854
100%
2.7
Numbers of school closures, amalgamations and new schools
The overall number of ordinary primary schools has remained relatively constant in
recent years. In 2000 there were 3,157 primary schools and in 2011/12 this figure
was 3,159 schools. However, each year there are changes in the composition of the
provision with the closure of some schools, the amalgamation of other schools to
form a new school and the establishment of brand new schools. Table 2.7 outlines
the level of recent closures, amalgamations and newly established schools.
Table 2.7
Overview of primary school closures, amalgamations and
establishment (2000 - 2012)
New schools
Straight
Year
Closures
Schools formed through
amalgamation of two or more
16
schools
Permanent recognition
granted to newly
established schools
2000
5
12
6
2001
3
8
4
2002
6
4
7
2003
5
6
2
2004
1
1
5
2005
7
7
8
2006
3
5
8
2007
4
13
9
2008
1
3
9
2009
9
4
9
2010
4
3
6
2011
3
6
8
2012
7
4
7
Total
58
76
88
Annual
Average
4
6
7
Table 2.8 outlines geographically where the school closures, amalgamations and new school
recognition have taken place over the period 2000 – 2012. Chart 1 which follows depicts this
visually.
16
These amalgamations are not exclusive to small schools; they comprise all schools
- 35 -
Table 2.8 County distribution of primary school closures, amalgamations
and new school recognition (2000 - 2012)
Straight
Closures
Leinster
County
Carlow
Dublin
Kildare
Kilkenny
Laois
Longford
Meath
Offaly
Westmeath
Wexford
Wicklow
Louth
Total
Ulster
Cavan
Donegal
Monaghan
Total
1
1
1
3
3
2
4
9
0
3
1
4
Munster
Cork
Kerry
Limerick
Clare
Tipperary
Waterford
Total
9
4
2
1
2
0
18
7
5
4
3
3
5
27
4
1
3
1
1
2
12
Connacht
Galway
Leitrim
Mayo
Roscommon
Sligo
Total
4
1
9
4
4
22
5
1
6
0
2
14
5
1
1
1
0
8
58
76
88
National Totals
2
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
2
1
15
Amalgamations
0
10
0
2
3
2
0
3
0
0
4
2
26
Permanent
recognition
to new
schools
- 36 -
1
35
4
0
1
1
8
2
1
4
5
2
64
Chart 1 : Overview of primary school straight closures, amalgamations and new
school recognition (2000 - 2012)
Sligo
Roscommon
Mayo
Leitrim
Galway
Waterford
Tipperary
Clare
Limerick
Kerry
County
Cork
Straight
closures
Monaghan
Amalgamations
Donegal
Cavan
New schools
recognised
Louth
Wicklow
Wexford
Westmeath
Offaly
Meath
Longford
Laois
Kilkenny
Kildare
Dublin
Carlow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No of schools
- 37 -
35
40
45
50
2.7.1 School closures
A school closes usually because either it does not have the minimum enrolment required
to continue as a recognised school (referred to as a straight closure) or because the
patron has decided to close the school due to planned rationalisation of provision. The
Rules for National Schools provide that “aid is not continued to a school at which the
average daily enrolment falls below eight units for two consecutive schools years “(Rule
36). Rule 35 provides that “Where appropriate religious instruction is not available to the
children of a particular denomination in a national school within reasonable distance of
their homes, the Minister is prepared to consider the question of recognising a school in
accordance with the Rules on condition that the average daily enrolment of pupils is not
less than 12. “
Section 11 of the Education Act, 1998 provides that the Minister may withdraw
recognition from a school where he is satisfied that the requirements are not being met.
In the case of an existing school, a key requirement is that the number of students
attending is sufficient to make the school viable. Where the Department forms the view
that pupil numbers do not justify the continuation of the school, there is a process in place
for school closures which involves the Department planning the closure with the school
authorities to ensure that it is as smooth as possible.
In the period 2000 to 2012 there were 58 school closures in eighteen counties. These
closures have taken place in both urban and rural areas but generally for different
reasons. In the case of urban areas, there is a tendency for enrolments to decline in
large urban schools as the population of an area ages and this leads to
closure/consolidation. In the case of rural areas, closure arises generally from the pupil
enrolment falling close to or below the minimum threshold of 8 pupils for two consecutive
years. In the period in question (2000 to 2012), the provinces of Munster and Connacht
had almost 70% of all closures (40 out of the 58 closures). This is consistent with the fact
that these provinces have 69% of all the small schools. Cork had 9 closures which
comprise urban closures in Cork city as well as rural closures across the county.
The current minimum enrolment threshold of 8 pupils is relatively low. Based on the
2011/12 enrolment data, of the fifty schools with the lowest enrolment in the country, 42
of them are either in Munster or Connacht. This suggests that based on the current
thresholds these will continue to be the regions with the highest closures. Added to this,
the best information available to the Department indicates that in the period until 2016
there is likely to be an overall decreased demand for primary school places in Counties
Donegal, Roscommon and Clare, even though there may be pockets of localised
increased demand in these counties.
2.7.2 School amalgamations
The formation of one new school from two or more existing schools is known as
amalgamation. This involves the closure of the existing schools and the opening of one
new school that will have, substantially, the staff members and the pupils of the
previously existing schools. The location of the new school may be the site of one of
the existing schools or it may be an entirely new site. The initiative for an amalgamation
can arise from any source – patron, board of management, staff, parents or the
Department. It should be noted that while the initiative can come from any source, the
patrons involved have the decision making authority in the case of amalgamations. An
agreement exists between the Department, the teacher unions and the management
bodies on the procedures, consultation process and staffing arrangements to apply in
the case of amalgamations.
- 38 -
The reasons for amalgamation vary but are often related to the poor condition of
buildings and a desire for better facilities to facilitate improved curriculum provision.
Other reasons include a decline in enrolments and/or a preference for co-education.
During the 1960s and 1970s, following the publication of the OECD Investment in
Education report, the Department adopted a policy of actively pursuing the
amalgamation of one and two teacher schools. This policy was changed in 1977 when
it was announced that the Department “will no longer force the amalgamation of small
schools into larger units”.
One hundred and fifty-two schools have amalgamated to form seventy six schools in
the period 2000 to 2012. These amalgamations have taken place in twenty counties.
The highest numbers have been in Leinster (26 amalgamations) and Munster (27
amalgamations). In the urban areas particularly, amalgamations often take place to
facilitate a move to co-education, or to amalgamate a senior school with a junior school
,if enrolments are declining.
2.7.3 New schools: trends and procedures for establishment
109 new primary schools were established in the period from 2000 to 2012 (Table 2.9) ,
mostly to meet demographic demand and 85 of these had been accorded permanent
recognition by the end of 2012 (Table 2.8).
Chart 2 illustrates the growth in primary school enrolment levels that has taken place
each year from 2000 to 2011 and projected growth in the period 2012-2014. This
projected growth is based on birth data already recorded.
It is notable that 64 of the schools accorded permanent recognition in the period in
question are in Leinster, and over half of these are in Dublin (Table 2.8). A further
seventeen permanently recognised schools are in Meath, Kildare and Wicklow. A
significant contributory factor for the establishment of these schools is the population
growth that has taken place in the mid-east area over the period in question and the best
information available indicates that this growth will continue in the period until 2016 at
least. While population growth is the major contributory factor to the need for new
schools, another factor has been parental demand for diversity of provision.
Up until the 1970s the establishment and recognition of new primary schools was a
relatively uncomplicated and non-controversial process. The system was almost entirely
under denominational patronage. Since then however, significant social and demographic
changes in Ireland have brought greater diversity in provision of primary schools and
greater complexity to the establishment of new primary schools. There has been strong
parental demand in particular for multi-denominational education and Irish-medium
education. Table 2.9 gives an overview of the patronage of the 109 new schools
established in the period 2000 – 2012.
- 39 -
Chart 2: Growth in primary pupil enrolment (2000 to 2011) and projected enrolment for 2012 - 2014
560,000
548,939
536,316
540,000
524,901
516,460
509,652
505,998
498,914
Pupils enrolled
520,000
500,000
486,444
480,000
457,889
460,000
440,000
No of
primary
school
pupils
471,519
Linear (No
of primary
school
pupils)
449,298
443,720446,029
439,560441,065
420,000
400,000
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Year
- 40 -
2010
2012
(projected)
2014
(projected)
Table 2.9
Patronage of mainstream primary schools newly established in
period 2000 to 2012
Patron Body
Total
Year
Educate
Together
Ltd
Catholic
An Foras
Pátrúnachta
17
Teo
Other
denominational
patron bodies
Other MultiDenominational
Patron Bodies
2000
1
1
2
0
0
4
2001
3
2
2
1
0
8
2002
0
7
3
0
0
10
2003
3
3
1
0
0
7
2004
0
4
1
1
0
6
2005
6
4
3
0
0
13
2006
2
2
5
0
0
9
2007
6
3
4
1
1
15
2008
3
12
3
0
3
21
2009
0
0
0
0
0
0
2010
2
2
0
0
2
6
2011
0
2
1
0
0
3
2012
0
5
1
0
1
7
Total
26
47
26
3
7
109
There was recognition in the White Paper, “Charting our Education Future”, that there
was a need to establish appropriate criteria and procedures to consider applications for
school recognition at primary level. The Commission on School Accommodation
produced a report in 1998 recommending criteria and procedures for recognition of new
primary schools. It recommended the establishment of the New Schools Advisory
17
Schools under the patronage of An Foras Pátrúnachta can be denominational (35 schools),
multi-denominational (10 schools) or inter-denominational (15 schools) as of December 2012.
- 41 -
Committee which considered applications for the establishment of new schools and
reported in an advisory capacity to the Minister during the period 2002 to 2008. The
procedures which the Committee used were devised based an expectation of falling
enrolments. Contrary to expectations, enrolments rose during the decade and are still
rising and expected to rise further. In light of the changed demographic and economic
environment, it was necessary to revise the criteria and procedures for the establishment
of new schools.
Revised procedures were proposed in the report “Revised Criteria and Procedures for the
Establishment of New Primary Schools 2011” and the Minister accepted the report’s
recommendations in June 2011. The Department now decides on the need to establish
new schools based on demographic need. Prospective patrons are invited to apply to be
considered to be patron of the new school. Patrons are asked to provide evidence of
parental demand when making an application for a new school. In addition, the
criteria used in deciding on patronage include how the proposed schools under the
respective patrons would provide for extending or strengthening diversity of provision in
each area, having regard to the views of parents. A report is prepared by Department
officials to be considered by the New Schools Establishment Group, an independent
advisory group, to advise the Minister on the patronage of the new schools. The New
Schools Establishment Group then reports to the Minister who makes a final decision on
the patronage.
Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector
The current system of school patronage has its origins in the 19th century as outlined in
2.1.1. There has been demand for diversity of provision in the past forty years. There
has been significant societal change in that period, particularly in recent times. For
example, 12% of primary school pupils are of migrant origin (CSO). Many peoples’ views
about the place of religion in society have changed also. There is a general recognition of
the need to adapt school patronage structures to meet the changing reality. In response
to this a Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Section was established
during 2011 as a formal structure within which to conduct a debate on how to move
towards a system that is responsive to current needs. The Advisory Group to the Forum
published their report in April 2012 and the recommendations of the Advisory Group can
be broadly divided into three key areas:
•
•
•
Divesting patronage where there is a stable population and demand for diversity of
schools
dealing with Irish medium primary schools
promoting more inclusiveness in all schools, including 'Stand Alone' schools where
divesting patronage to another body is not an option
A process is now underway which will lead to the divestment of schools in selected areas
of stable population growth. It is also planned to issue a White Paper on promoting
greater inclusiveness in primary schools.
2.8 Trends in the distribution of primary schools according to school
size and pupil numbers
The overall number of primary schools has remained relatively constant during the recent
years of strong pupil growth (from 1999 onwards) but the composition of the schools has
altered steadily over the years in terms of school size and the numbers of pupils catered
for in the various sizes of school. Chart 3 illustrates the trend in change in the school
sizes and Chart 4 illustrates the numbers of pupils taught in the schools of various sizes.
- 42 -
Chart 3: Trend in the number of primary schools of various pupil sizes (2000 - 2011)
3500
64
3000 226
247
230
381
90
66
66
391
294
432
Number of schools
764
2000
338
483
2500
768
97
506
779
821
795
1500
962
985
954
837
1000
500
760
719
682
824
650
599
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
- 43 -
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
500 + pupils
300-499 pupils
200-299 pupils
100-199 pupils
50-99 pupils
<50 pupils
Pupil size
Chart 4: Trend in the number of pupils in primary schools of various sizes (2000 to 2011)
600000
500000
59,954
54,806
Number of pupils
400000
38,086
40,200
118,619
131,465
93,826
88,370
300000
92,786
100,601
117,692
121,519
107,693
109,429
117,327
113,196
70,636
70,341
63,120
61,854
200000
100000
23,659
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
21,037
2004
2005
2006
Year
- 44 -
2007
18,446
2008
2009
2010
18,230
2011
500 + pupils
(300-499) pupils
(200-299) pupils
(100-199) pupils
(50-99) pupils
< 50 pupils
Charts 3 and 4 were compiled using the data from Table 2.4 in the DES annual statistical
reports (2000/1 – 2011/12).
Chart 3 shows that, while the overall number of schools has remained constant over the
period, the number of schools of less than 100 pupils is declining steadily whereas the
number of schools of above 100 pupils is rising.
Chart 4 illustrates an overall growth in pupil numbers of almost 83,000 pupils in the
period (from 423,344 pupils in 2000/1 to 506,218 pupils in 2011/12). There are two
components to the growth, namely:
• 297 schools of greater than 100 pupils have increased enrolment of
97,085 pupils.
• 299 schools of less than 100 pupils have experienced a decline in
numbers of 14,129 pupils.
The increase in pupil enrolment in the schools of over 100 pupils is almost seven times
the reduction in pupil enrolment in an equivalent number of schools of under 100 pupils.
2.9
Projections for future provision of mainstream primary school
requirements
Ireland has experienced with record increases in birth rates in recent years and also high
inward migration until quite recently. Historical evidence shows that enrolment at primary
level is mainly determined by the number of births and, to a much lesser extent, family
migration.
The Forward Planning Section of the Department of Education and Skills (DES) is
responsible for assessing the demographic trends in each area of the country and
estimating the impact on education infrastructure and capacity. These estimates are
based on statistical information from a number of sources:
•
The Central Statistics Office (CSO)
•
The Department of Social Protection
•
The General Register’s Office
•
An Post’s Geo-directory
•
The Department of Education and Skills database
•
Local Area Plans from the local authorities
The DES’s Forward Planning Section has developed an extensive capacity to analyse
statistics and demographics from amongst the above sources using a Geographical
Information System (GIS). The GIS allows the Department to view, understand,
question, interpret, and visualize data in many ways that reveal relationships, patterns,
and trends in the form of maps, reports, and charts. The GIS helps answer questions and
solve problems by looking at information in a way that is quickly understood and easily
shared.
The GIS allows various datasets to be layered over a digital map of Ireland. The location
of all schools, primary and post-primary, have been mapped and indicative school
planning catchment areas, based on post-primary feeder areas, have been established
and the relevant demographic information was then linked to these catchment areas
using GIS.
- 45 -
Figure 1: Map of Ireland showing school planning catchment areas used by
Forward Planning Section
The best information available to the DES indicates that up to 2016 the following trends will
apply:
•
there will continue to be significant increase in the number of children requiring primary
school places in the mid-east area, which includes the greater Dublin area and towns in
the commuter counties of Kildare, Meath, Louth and Wicklow
•
there will be localised increases/decreases of children at primary school level in the
concentrated urban areas of Cork, Galway, Limerick and Dublin
•
in general, it is likely there will be decreased demand for school places in the counties
of Donegal, Roscommon and Clare, even though there may be pockets of localised
increase in demand in these counties.
18
The Department of Education and Skills published in July 2012 a set of projections of
full-time enrolment in schools aided by the Department of Education and Skills. It draws
on census data from the 2011 CSO census of population.
The enrolment projections are based on a number of different population projection
scenarios. The scenarios are anchored on a combination of migration and fertility
assumptions that fall in the middle of a wide range of possible developments in these
areas. The combinations of the following migration and fertility assumptions are as
follows:
18
“Projections of Full Time Enrolment – Primary and Second Level 2012 – 2030” published by
the Statistics Section of the Dept of Education & Skills July 2012
- 46 -
M0:
Net outward migration at post-primary level will increase gradually to a
combined level of -45,000 by 2020 and remain at that level from that point
M1:
Net migration at primary and post-primary level will stabilize at 0 from 2015
onwards.
M2:
There will be a return to significant net inward migration by 2016, with net
inward migration at round 5,000 by 2020.
Assumptions were also made on the direction of the Total Period Fertility Rate (TPFR), a
synthetic indicator of fertility, which shows the average expected number of children a
woman would have by the age of 49 based on the current year’s information on births
and age of mothers. The following assumptions were made on TPFR:
F0:
TPFR will decline to EU average levels (1.65) by 2016 and remain at that
level into the future.
F1:
TPFR will very gradually decline over time reaching a level of 1.89 by 2030
F2:
TPFR will remain steady at 2010 levels (2.09) for the period of the projections
These two sets of assumptions combine to give a total of nine scenarios under which
enrolments are projected from 2015 to 2030. The Department is currently considering
M1F1 as the most likely scenario over this period.
Pupil projections from 2011 to 2031 based on combinations of these scenarios are
illustrated in Chart 5 below
- 47 -
Chart 5: Projections of Enrolment at Primary Level
(Source: Dept of Education & Skills Statistics Section Projections of Full-time Enrolment July 2012
- 48 -
19
KEY POINTS TO NOTE
Primary Level:
-
Focussing on the immediate three year period ahead (2012-2014 inclusive),
enrolment is projected to increase by almost 32,500 pupils from 516,460 pupils in 2011
to 548,939 pupils in 2014/15. This figure takes into account a conservative estimate of
net outward migration in the primary school aged cohort, based on available data from
the Department’s Annual Census of Primary Schools. It is highly unlikely that
enrolment at primary level will fall before the year 2015 even if increased emigration of
families occurs before then.
-
There is greater uncertainty about trends beyond 2014 as the cumulative effect of using
different migration or fertility assumptions is estimated. Under a low-growth scenario
(M0 F0 – high net outward migration in the immediate future combined with a significant
fall in fertility), enrolment could fall to around 422,000 by 2030. Under a high-growth
scenario (M2 F2 – low net outward migration in the immediate future combined with a
constant 2010 rate of fertility), enrolment could rise to over 553,000 by 2030.
-
All above scenarios considered, continuing enrolment growth up to 2018 is implied and,
for some scenarios, growth continues up to 2020 and 2021. However, from 2021 at the
latest, all scenarios show falling enrolment numbers for the remainder of the period
shown. This reflects a likely reduction in the numbers of births from 2015 onwards, as
there is a natural reduction in the projected numbers of females aged 15-49 from that
point onwards, reflecting the reduction in births in the 1990s in comparison to the
1980s.
-
The margin between the highest (M2 F2) and lowest (M0 F0) population-growth
scenarios is as much as 131,415 pupils in the year 2030 compared to a margin of only
3,000 in the year 2016.
-
Currently M1F1 is considered the most likely scenario. This would suggest and
increase in enrolments at primary level to 601,802 by 2020, and a gradual decline
thereafter.
2.10
Population growth areas
Census 2011 showed a strong growth in population from the 2006 census. There was
an increase of 8.2 per cent over the 5-year inter-censal period, an average annual
increase of 1.6 per cent. This follows on the previous annual average increase
between Census 2002 and Census 2006 which was 2.1 per cent, the highest on record.
Figure 2 overleaf illustrates the level of population growth that has taken place in all
areas of the country and shows pockets of growth in many areas.
Figure 3 shows that the commuter belt counties to the north and west of Dublin were
the main areas of population growth which, along with Wexford and Cork, all grew by
more than 10 per cent. The population of Co Laois increased by one fifth between April
2006 and April 2011 and was by far the fastest growing county in the country. It had
over twice the growth rate for the country overall which increased by 8.2 per cent.
Other counties that showed rapid growth since 2006 are Cavan which grew by 14.3 per
cent and Fingal which increased by 14.2 per cent, both nearly twice the growth rate for
the State.
19
Projections of Full Time Enrolment – Primary and Second Level 2012 – 2030 published by
the Statistics Section of the Dept of Education & Skills July 2012
- 49 -
Figure 2: Percentage change in the population of electoral divisions 2006 – 2011
(Source: CSO Census 2011)
- 50 -
Figure 3: Population change by county 2006 -2011 (Source: CSO Census 2011)
- 51 -
2.10 Findings
At the establishment of the State, the primary school system could be characterised as
denominational with a large number of small schools in poor condition. A rationalisation
policy was pursued in the 1960s in relation to one and two teacher schools which
reduced their numbers from 3,194 schools in 1962 to 1,168 schools by 1979. The
introduction of the post-primary school transport scheme in 1967 was key to the
rationalisation because it resulted in a more easily available primary school transport
scheme. The rationalisation policy was criticised for the lack of adequate consultation
with local communities about planned closures. In 1977 a change was announced
whereby it was stated the policy remained in place but full consultation with local
communities would take place. Amalgamations during the 1980s tended to take place
among larger schools.
The 1995 White Paper “Charting our Education Future” recommended the establishment
of a Commission on School Accommodation to conduct detailed studies to support policy
formulation on the re-organisation of school provision. Among its reports, the
Commission produced a report proposing an amalgamation framework for primary
schools. From the 1970s onwards increasing parental demand emerged for greater
choice of provision, in particular for multi-denominational education and all–Irish
education. The demand for choice continues today.
From the late 1990s there was a prioritisation of resource allocation to primary education
which resulted in increased staffing to cater for pupils with special educational needs,
pupils from a disadvantaged background, pupils for whom English is not their first
language and general increases to reduce class sizes. There was also substantial
capital investment. The legislative background in regard to education includes
constitutional protections. Legislation underpinning educational rights has been enacted
in recent years.
Primary education costs over €3 billion annually and over 90% of expenditure is current
expenditure. 78% of all current expenditure is on teachers’ pay and pensions (€2.5 bn out
of €3.3bn current expenditure in 2011). Ireland has a relatively high number of small
primary schools. Forty six percent of the State’s 3,165 primary schools in 2009/10 had
less than 100 pupils. In 2011/12, the latest year for which enrolment data is published,
this figure was 45%. The smaller schools have lower class sizes.
While there is an increase in different forms of primary school patronage in the past forty
years, the majority of schools are under denominational patronage (almost 90% are
under Catholic patronage and 5% are under the patronage of the Church of Ireland).
Each year there are school closures, amalgamations and new school establishment. The
numbers vary from year to year. Over the period 2000 to 2012, there were 58 closures,
76 amalgamations and 88 new schools accorded permanent recognition, following
provisional recognition on their establishment. Of the 88 schools accorded permanent
recognition, 64 of them were in the province of Leinster, with 35 being in Dublin. Of the
109 primary schools established since 2000, 47 are under the patronage of Educate
Together, 26 under Catholic patronage, 26 under An Foras Pátrúnachta and the
remaining 10 under other patron bodies.
- 52 -
In the period since the year 2000 there has been strong growth in primary pupil
enrolment. Overall enrolment had increased from 439,650 pupils in the year 2000 to
516,460 pupils in 2011. Based on birth data, enrolment is projected to increase by some
32,500 pupils in the three year period (2012 – 2014 inclusive). Enrolment is expected to
reach 549,000 pupils by 2014/15. It is highly unlikely that enrolment at primary level will
fall before the year 2015 even if increased emigration of families occurs before then.
There is greater uncertainty about trends beyond 2014 but continuing enrolment growth
is expected up to 2018. The period from 2000 to 2011 has seen a reduction of 299
smaller schools (of less than 100 pupils) and an increase of 297 in larger schools (of
more than 100 pupils). The increase in pupil enrolment borne by the larger schools is
almost seven times the reduction in pupil enrolment from the closure/amalgamation of the
smaller schools. A clear imbalance is evident in terms pupil distribution between the two
sets of schools.
In terms of regional requirements, the best information indicates that there will continue to
be a significant increase in the number of children requiring school places in the mid-east
area; that there will be localised increases/decreases in the urban centres of Dublin,
Galway, Cork and Limerick and that there is likely to be decreased demand for school
places in the counties of Donegal, Roscommon and Clare. Census 2011 showed a strong
growth in population from the 2006 census. The commuter belt counties to the north and
west of Dublin were the main areas of population growth which, along with Wexford and
Cork, all grew by more than 10 per cent.
The Department now makes the decision as to the requirement for the establishment of a
new school based on demographic demand. The patron selection process is separate
and this is overseen by the New Schools Establishment Group, an independent Advisory
Group which advises the Minister on the patronage of new schools. This Group submits a
report to the Minister who then makes the decision. The Advisory Group to Forum on
Patronage and Pluralism reported in April 2012 with recommendations on how to
accommodate parental preferences in both new and established areas on a cost-neutral
basis. A process is currently underway towards implementation of the recommendations.
- 53 -
Chapter 3: Objectives of primary school provision
This chapter outlines the State’s general approach to the provision of primary schools
and then examines the background reasons for the relatively high proportion of small
schools within the overall provision.
3.1
General approach to provision of primary schools
Chapter 2 outlined the constitutional and legal obligations on the State to provide for
free primary education. It also described historical developments and more recent
developments which have led to the current configuration of the country wide network
of primary schools. The last forty years or so has seen an increase in parental
demand for new types of schools. The requirement for a new school is now identified
by the Department based on demographic need. The process of patron selection is
separate and is governed by parental demand and by the question of availability of
diversity of provision in a particular area. Generally, a new school will be a minimum
of one single stream and preferably two or three streams.
3.2
Population factors
The population in Ireland is dispersed unevenly, with great concentrations of people
towards the eastern half of the country. This trend, allied with the fall and rise of
population over the years has had an influence on the provision of schools. Table 3.1
gives a snapshot of the population in the twenty six counties at regular intervals from
1841 to the present date and the percentage distribution of the population in each
province.
Table 3.1 Ireland: overview of population changes 1841 -2011 (CSO)
Province
Percentage distribution of population
Year
Total
Population
(millions)
Leinster
Munster
Connacht
Ulster
1841
6.5
30.23 %
36.70 %
21.70 %
11.34%
1871
4.0
33.05 %
34.38 %
20.88 %
11.70%
1901
3.2
35.78 %
33.40 %
20.08 %
10.74%
1936
3.0
41.11 %
31.74 %
17.70 %
9.44%
1966
2.9
49.04 %
29.08 %
13.94 %
7.22%
1986
3.5
52.33 %
28.82 %
12.18 %
6.67%
2006
4.2
54.13 %
27.67 %
11.89 %
6.30%
2011
4.6
54.48%
27.24%
11.76%
6.5%
- 54 -
There are two notable features evident:
Firstly, the population had almost halved by 1966 (to 2.9million) when compared with the
previous one hundred years or so. Factors such as famine, wars, disease and
emigration have all contributed to this. Since the mid-1960s, there has been a constant
rise in population and this is expected to continue.
Secondly, there has been a consistent movement of population to Leinster so that over
the entire period, its proportion of the population has steadily increased at the expense of
the other three provinces, particularly Connacht and Ulster.
3.3
Location of small schools
Table 3.2 gives an overview of the distribution of small schools by province:
Table 3.2
Number of small schools (less than 50 pupils) in each
province (based on 2009/10 enrolment)
Province
Leinster
No. of
small
schools
94
(Counties Carlow, Dublin, Louth, Meath, Kildare, Offaly, Laois, Longford,
Kilkenny, Westmeath, Wicklow and Wexford)
Munster
195
(Counties Clare, Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford)
Connacht
207
(Counties Galway, Mayo, Leitrim, Roscommon and Sligo)
Ulster
86
(Counties Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan)
Total
582
There are small schools in every province. Indeed, there are small schools in every
county in Ireland. However, the greater concentration of them in the provinces of
Munster, Connacht and Ulster is clearly shown in Chart 6 which shows the number of
small schools in each county in Ireland:
- 55 -
M
al
w
ay
70
a
D yo
on
eg
al
C
or
k
R
os Cla
co re
m
m
on
K
Ti err
pp y
er
Li ary
m
er
ic
k
M Slig
on
o
ag
ha
Le n
i tr
im
La
K ois
ilk
en
W ny
ex
fo
rd
C
av
W
es
a
tm n
W eat
at
h
er
fo
r
D d
ub
Lo lin
ng
fo
rd
M
ea
th
O
ffa
C ly
ar
l
W ow
ic
kl
o
K w
ild
ar
e
Lo
ut
h
G
No of small schools
Chart 6:
60
40
20
10
- 56 -
County distribution of the 582 small schools (based on 2009/10 enrolment)
80
70
67
60
51
50
42
39
38
33
30
20
18
16
14
13
13
10
County
10
10
10
8
7
7
6
6
6
5
0
3
It is noted that the eight counties of Galway, Mayo, Donegal, Cork, Clare,
Roscommon, Kerry and Tipperary have 400 small schools between them which
constitute 69% of the total of all small schools.
3.4
Reasons for continued provision of small schools
As outlined in Chapter 2, there are historical legacy reasons for the high number of
small schools. Added to that, the Department’s rules provide a minimum threshold
of 8 pupils for allowing a school to continue. This is clearly a low threshold. If the
pupil numbers are above the closure threshold and the local community supports
the school and continues to send children to the school then that school continues.
It is important to note that a small school can only continue with the practical
support of the local community who send their children to be educated there. Given
that fact, there are a number of reasons which can be postulated for the continued
provision of small schools:
1.
Historical legacy
In 1922 when the new State was established it inherited approximately 5,700
primary schools of which approximately 4,500 were 1- or 2-teacher schools.
The amalgamation policy of the 1960s resulted in a reduction in the number of
one and two teacher schools from 3,194 in the year 1962 to 1,168 schools by the
year 1979. A change in the amalgamation policy was announced in 1977 and the
pace of amalgamations slowed down as a result.
2.
Population density and geography
The counties with the highest number of small schools are in the three provinces
which have a proportionately lower population than Leinster, which has the least
number of small schools.
Galway, Mayo, Donegal, Cork and Clare are all coastal counties which have
some mountainous areas and remote geographical locations. In addition,
Galway, Mayo, Donegal and Cork have thirteen small island schools.
3.
Gaeltacht areas
There are Gaeltacht areas in seven counties, namely Galway, Mayo, Donegal,
Cork, Kerry, Waterford and Meath. The largest Gaeltacht areas are in Galway,
Mayo, Donegal, Cork and Kerry and these are the counties with all the small
Gaeltacht schools. All the Gaeltacht schools are Catholic in ethos. Table 3.3
outlines the distribution of the Gaeltacht schools:
- 57 -
Table 3.3
Distribution of Gaeltacht primary schools (2009/10)
Gaeltacht primary schools
(excluding island schools)
County
Number of
schools
No of schools
with less
than 50 pupils in
2009/10
17
16
11
5
2
0
0
51
37
24
36
14
5
4
3
20
123
Galway
Mayo
Donegal
Kerry
Cork
Meath
Waterford
Percentage of schools
with less than 50 pupils
46%
67%
31%
35%
40%
0%
0%
41%
Table 3.3 is illustrated in Chart 7 below:
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
25
8
Gaeltacht primary schools w ith less
than 50 pupils (52 schools)
16
l
ga
ne
rk
or
d
e rf
at
W
Co
h
11
3
2
30
at
Me
yo
40
Ma
Ke
lw
a
rry
5
Ga
Gaeltacht primary schools w ith more
than 50 pupils (70 schools)
Do
9
17
y
N o o f s c h o o ls
Chart 7: Size and distribution of the 123 Gaeltacht primary schools (based on
2009/10 enrolments & excluding island schools)
County
20
In 2009/10, there were 124 Gaeltacht mainland primary schools. One school (in Donegal)
has since amalgamated on 31/8/12. Consequently, the overall number has reduced to
123 schools.
- 58 -
Chart 8 : County distribution of the Church of Ireland's 179 primary schools (based on 2009/10
enrolments)
35
30
20
6
29
COI > 50 pupils
(105 schools in
total)
11
15
13
10
17
6
5
0
4
3
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
2
0
3
3
0
3
2
1
2
0
1
2
3
1
3
0
0
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
10
5
4
4
2
1
2
2
2
1
4
4
4
C
ar
lo
w
C
la
G re
al
w
ay
Ke
Ki rry
lk
en
ny
La
oi
Le s
itr
Li im
m
er
ic
k
Lo
ut
h
M
ay
o
M
ea
th
O
R
os ffa
co ly
m
m
on
S
Ti ligo
pp
e
W rar
y
at
er
fo
W rd
ex
fo
rd
C
av
a
Ki n
ld
Lo are
ng
W
es ford
tm
ea
th
C
o
W rk
ic
kl
ow
D
M ubl
on in
ag
h
D an
on
eg
al
No of schools
25
County
- 59 -
COI < 50 pupils
(75 schools in
total)
Chart 9: County distribution of the 14 Presbyterian schools (based on 2009/10 enrolments)
9
8
7
No of schools
6
6
5
4
3
2
0
3
1
0
2
2
1
0
Louth
0
Monaghan
Dublin
County
- 60 -
Donegal
Presbyterian schools with less than 50 pupils
(Nine schools in total)
Presbterian schools with over 50 pupils (Five
schools in total)
4.
Minority denominational schools
Schools that cater for the minority denominations tend to be smaller. This
21
applies in the case of the Church of Ireland and Presbyterian schools. Church
of Ireland schools are dispersed throughout all counties whereas Presbyterian
schools are located in four counties. Charts 6 and 7 illustrate the county
distribution of the Church of Ireland and Presbyterian schools respectively.
5. Multi-denominational schools
In 2009/10 there were five multi-denominational schools with enrolment of under 50
pupils. Three of these schools were all-Irish schools and the other two schools
teach through the medium of English. Of the five multi-denominational schools,
four of them have opened since 2007 and their enrolment had exceeded 50 pupils
by 2010/11. The other school was an English speaking school which transformed
to Irish medium education.
3.5
Analysis of small school provision in each county
Table 3.4 outlines the categories of small school in each county. Chart 10 which
follows gives a visual representation of the three principal categories which account
for 548 schools (94% of all the small schools), namely:
•
21
Catholic, English-medium, non-Gaeltacht schools
(423 schools or 72% of the total)
•
Church of Ireland schools
(74 schools or 12% of the total)
•
Gaeltacht schools
(51 schools or 8% of the total)
In 2009/10 there were 181 Church of Ireland primary schools. Two schools have since
closed. Hence the number in 2012/13 is 179 schools.
- 61 -
Table 3.4 Category of small school in each county (2009/10 enrolment)
County
Galway
Mayo
Donegal
Cork
Clare
Roscommon
Kerry
Tipperary
Limerick
Sligo
Monaghan
Leitrim
Laois
Kilkenny
Wexford
Cavan
Westmeath
Waterford
Dublin
Longford
Meath
Offaly
Carlow
Wicklow
Kildare
Louth
Total
Catholic (non
Gaeltacht)
Church of
Ireland
45
47
22
36
40
37
31
30
19
16
8
11
8
13
7
6
8
8
2
5
6
5
6
2
2
3
Gaeltacht
1
2
17
10
1
2
2
3
1
2
4
3
3
Island
17
16
11
2
Presbyterian
5
2
3
3
Catholic,
Irishmedium,
outside the
Gaeltacht
Multidenominational
1
6
1
1
1
5
3
1
1
2
4
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
423
1
74
- 62 -
51
13
9
7
5
Total
small
schools
70
67
60
51
42
39
38
33
20
18
16
14
13
13
10
10
10
10
8
7
7
6
6
6
5
3
582
Chart 10: County distribution of the three main categories of small school
70
60
40
46 47
23
Catholic (non
Gaeltacht)
36
30
11
41 37 31
20
10
Gaeltacht
17 16 17
2
10
1
2
5
1
2
2
19 15
9 11 9
13 7
3 1 2 4 3 3
2
6
4
8
2
8
2
3
4
5
2
6
1
6
6
2
4
2
2
w
ay
M
D ayo
on
eg
al
C
or
k
R
os C
co lar
m e
m
on
K
Ti er
pp ry
e
Li rar
m y
er
ic
k
M Sl
on ig
ag o
h
L e an
itr
im
La
K oi
ilk s
e
W nny
ex
fo
rd
C
W
a
es va
tm n
W ea
at t h
er
fo
D rd
u
Lo bl
ng in
fo
r
M d
ea
t
O h
ffa
C ly
ar
W low
ic
kl
o
K w
ild
ar
Lo e
ut
h
0
Church of
Ireland
30
G
al
No of small schools
50
County
- 63 -
3
3.6 Findings
The Department’s procedures now provide that a new school is established based on demographic
need and that the minimum size of a new school would be eight classrooms. The reasons for the
existence of small schools relate to a number of factors, including historical legacy, population
density and geographical factors, Gaeltacht areas and minority denominational schools.
There are seven main groups of small schools, and the numbers of them based on 2009/10
enrolment levels are as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Type of small school
No of schools
Percentage of total of
small schools
Catholic, English-medium, nonGaeltacht
Church of Ireland
Gaeltacht
Island
Presbyterian
Catholic, Irish medium, non
Gaeltacht
Multi-denominational
423 schools
72%
74 schools
51 schools
13 schools
9 schools
7 schools
12%
8%
2%
1%
1%
5 schools
< 1%
582 schools
100%
Chapter 2 identified that almost 90% of all schools are Catholic schools. There are 493 schools in
Groups 1, 3, 4 and 6 above and these are all Catholic schools and comprise 85% of all small
schools. In the context of the overall number of Catholic schools however, these 493 schools are
only about 17% of the overall total of Catholic schools. In contrast, in the case of the minority
denominations of Church of Ireland and Presbyterian schools, (Groups 2 and 5), they comprise
14% of all small schools. But they constitute 43% of the overall number of Church of Ireland
schools and 64% of the overall number of Presbyterian schools.
In regard to the Gaeltacht areas, 43% of all primary schools in the Gaeltacht areas are small
schools.
There is a tiny percentage of small schools in the multi-denominational sector (< 1%). Four of the
five small multi-denominational schools listed above had been relatively recently established in
2009/10 and their enrolment levels had well exceeded 50 pupils by 2011/12.
Since the mid 1960s the national population has been increasing. The proportion of the population
in Leinster has steadily increased at the expense of the other provinces. All counties have small
schools but the majority of small schools are in the counties of Connacht and Munster. The
counties with the highest numbers of small schools are Galway, Mayo, Donegal, Cork, Clare,
Roscommon, Kerry and Tipperary. Between them, these eight counties have almost 70% of all the
small schools.
64
Chapter 4:
Value for Money Review – Methodology
Introduction
This chapter describes the methodology adopted to conduct this VFM review. This includes a
discussion of the Programme Logic Model and a description of how this evaluative model has been
applied to this review of small school provision. It also identifies the specific research methods
employed as part of the Review and highlights the performance indicators and key questions that
will be used in later chapters to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the provision of small
primary schools.
4.1
Programme Logic Model
This VFM Review uses the Programme Logic Model (PLM) as a framework for evaluating the
provision of small primary schools. The PLM attempts to do two things. In the first instance it
attempts to identify and describe the individual components of the particular programme under
review. In general terms, these can be defined as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
Inputs – the resources dedicated to or consumed by a programme.
Activities – the actions or tasks that transform inputs into outputs.
Outputs – the direct products of a programme’s activities.
Intermediate outcomes – the effects of the outputs on the targeted beneficiaries in the
immediate or short term.
Long-term outcomes (or impacts) – the ultimate impact of a programme in the medium to
long term.
22
The diagram below illustrates the relationship between the various elements of the PLM and
highlights the fact that the outcome of a programme or service is generally measured by reference
to its impact on those targeted by the programme or service as well as the impact on wider society
(where this can be measured).
The PLM also attempts to identify the ‘theory of change’ underlying the programme under review,
illustrating how the day-to-day activities of the programme contribute to the outcome that the
programme is trying to achieve. Through data collection and analysis, the goal of the evaluation is
to compare how the programme under review is intended to work, with what is actually occurring.
4.2
Application of the PLM to the provision of small primary schools
22
Adapted from the European Commission model.: European Commission (2004), Evaluation of
socio-economic development – the GUIDE publication website, http://www.evalsed.info
65
In applying the PLM to the provision and operation of small primary schools, it is first necessary to
identify the inputs, outputs and outcomes associated with this provision in order to surface the
‘theory of change’ that underpins it.
The rationale for, or the theory behind, the provision of small primary schools is that through the
provision of inputs (including financial resources, teachers and ancillary staff, support services, and
professional and administrative staff time within the Department) the Department of Education and
Skills supports a number of small primary schools (the output of the provision), that are mainly
located in rural areas, so that children of primary school age are enabled to attend a local school
without having to travel excessive distances and are able to benefit from the same quality of
education as those pupils attending schools of a larger size (the intermediate outcome). Through
benefiting from quality education, pupils in small primary schools are then enabled to develop to
their full potential and thereby contribute to the economy and wider society (the final outcome of the
scheme).
Table 4.1 illustrates the application of the PLM to the provision of small primary schools.
66
Table 4.1: Application of PLM to the provision and maintenance of small primary schools
Inputs
Capital funding for initial provision and
ongoing operation of small schools
Current funding for small primary
schools
(including
salaries
and
superannuation costs of principals,
teachers and other staff - SNAs,
classroom
assistants,
caretakers,
secretaries;
capitation
payments;
grants for school books; funding under
the School Support Programme;
support services such as NEPS and
CPD
supports;
supervision
and
substitution costs; school transport
costs.
Professional and administrative staff
time in DES.
Input indicators
• Level of capital funding provided to
small primary schools
• Level of current funding provided to
small primary schools
• Number of teachers and support
staff in small primary schools
• Cost of staff time (professional and
administrative) in DES spent
dealing with small primary schools.
Activities (inputs into
output)
Assessing, allocating and
monitoring
capital
expenditure for provision /
maintenance
of
small
primary
schools
under
various grant schemes.
Allocating and monitoring
current funding to small
primary schools
Allocating teachers and
support staff to small
primary
schools
and
organisation of support
services for such schools.
Conducting inspections of
quality of education in small
primary schools.
Output
Intermediate outcome
Final outcome
Provision and maintenance of
small primary schools.
Children of primary school age,
primarily in rural areas, are
enabled to:
Eligible
students
receive
benefits of quality education
and in turn contribute to
society/ economy.
Output indicators
• No. of small primary
schools
• Physical condition of the
buildings and the facilities
available
• No. of pupils in small
primary schools
• Pupil Teacher Ratio in
small primary schools
•
attend a local school
without having to travel
excessive distances; and,
•
receive the same quality of
education
as
pupils
attending schools with
larger numbers of pupils.
Intermediate
outcome
indicators
• Distance
travelled
by
students attending small
primary schools
• The quality of education
received by students in
small
primary
schools
compared to trends in
larger
schools
and/or
nationally.
67
The main challenge in applying the PLM to the provision of small schools arises in relation to
measuring the final outcome of this provision. This is a challenge common to the evaluation of many
public sector programmes due to the lack of available data on the outcomes associated with much
public sector activity.
The final outcome of small school provision has been defined in Table 4.2 as enabling pupils to
develop to their full potential and thereby contribute to the economy and wider society. It is not
possible to identify a practical performance indicator or indicators that would facilitate a meaningful
measurement of the relationship between the provision of small primary schools and the extent to
which pupils attending such schools develop to their full potential and contribute to the economy and
society. In terms of measuring the outcome of the provision of small primary schools, therefore, this
review will focus on the extent to which the intermediate outcome has been achieved. This means
that the focus in this review, in terms of assessing effectiveness, will be on measuring the relationship
between the provision of small primary schools and (i) the extent to which pupils are thereby enabled
to attend a local school without having to travel excessive distances and (ii) the extent to which pupils
attending such schools receive the same quality of education as pupils in larger schools.
While it will not be possible to measure the extent to which the final outcome of the provision of small
primary schools is being achieved, the expectation (and the theory underpinning such provision) is
that the intermediate outcome will in turn contribute towards the achievement of the final outcome.
4.3
Application of the PLM to the provision of small primary schools
The next stage of the PLM is the development of indicators for each component of the logic model.
Table 4.1 identified indicators for the main inputs, outputs and outcomes associated with small school
provision. However, in order to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of such provision, it is
necessary to establish performance indicators that link inputs to outputs (efficiency indicators) and
outputs to outcomes (effectiveness indicators).
Each of the performance indicators identified for this review is linked to one or more ‘key questions’.
Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 identify the performance indicators and the key questions that will be
addressed in Chapters 6 and 7 to track the performance indicators and thereby measure the
effectiveness and efficiency of small school provision.
68
Table 4.2 : Performance indicators and key questions used to assess effectiveness
Performance Indicator
Key question (s)
The quality of the education received by
pupils in small primary schools
•
Do small schools provide more effective educational
outcomes compared to large schools?
•
Is it possible to have a more efficient organisation of
provision that includes reasonable pupil travel times and
respects parental choice on school ethos and language
of instruction?
•
How would re-organisation of provision impact on the
communities served by small primary schools?
Distance that pupils in small primary
schools travel to their school
Contribution that small primary schools
make to the communities they serve
Table 4.3: Performance indicators and key questions used to assess efficiency
Performance Indicator
Key question (s)
o
o
The unit cost per pupil in small primary
schools
o
o
o
o
Future enrolment projections for primary
school population
o
o
o
Average pupils per class teacher in small
primary schools
o
o
Cost of professional and administrative
staff time within the DES that is employed
on duties related to small primary schools.
o
What is the current unit cost per pupil in small primary
schools and how has this changed in recent years?
How does the unit cost compare to the unit cost in all
other primary schools?
What are the key cost drivers behind the unit cost?
Could educational provision in small primary schools be
organised more efficiently?
What are the likely costs arising from any reorganisation
of educational provision in small primary schools?
What implications will current enrolment projections have
for future demand in small primary schools, and other
schools?
What is the most efficient way of catering for future
enrolment projections?
What are the implications arising from the increasing
diversity in Irish society for the future organisation of
educational provision?
How many pupils on average per class teacher in small
primary schools?
How does the average pupils per class teacher in small
schools compare to the average in other
schools/nationally?
What is the ratio of the cost of professional and
administrative staff time spent on dealing with small
primary schools to the number of pupils in such schools?
How does this compare to the ratio of the cost of
professional and administrative staff time to the number
of pupils in all other primary schools?
69
4.4 Research Methodology
The final stage in the PLM process is to track the performance indicators and assess the overall
performance of the particular scheme or programme under review by collecting data/information
through a variety of methods such as document analysis, case studies, surveys, interviews and focus
groups. The research methods adopted as part of this review included the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Document analysis
Public submissions
Consultation process with key stakeholders
Interviews with officials in relevant sections in the Department of Education and Skills
Case studies
International comparison
70
Chapter 5:
Small schools, community and international
practice
Introduction
This chapter covers aspects relating to small schools and community. The standard procedures for
the conduct of a VFM review require that the views of stakeholders be obtained. As schools have a
wide variety of stakeholders it was decided that the best way of obtaining the views was to conduct a
public consultation process. The terms of reference for the Review acknowledge that primary schools
play an important role in their local communities The Review explored some international practices in
relation to small school provision and the community impact of small primary schools .
One of the performance indicators to assess the effectiveness of small schools is to identify the
contribution they make to the community they serve. Chapter 4 poses the following question:
How would re-organisation of provision impact on the communities served by small
primary schools?
This chapter explores this question.
5.1 Public consultations on the review of small primary schools
The public consultations were conducted by issuing a direct invitation to relevant interest groups to
provide a submission and also by posting a general invitation on the Department’s website. The
interest groups to whom direct invitations were issued represent a wide spectrum of membership
including the school patron bodies, management bodies, teacher unions, national parents’ council,
Irish language groups and other groups who operate in the area of social inclusion. The invitation to
provide a submission suggested that the following themes might be addressed:
•
How well do small primary schools (of 50 pupils or less) meet the needs of
pupils/parents/teachers?
•
Are the current minimum enrolment thresholds appropriate in terms of the distances between
neighbouring schools?
•
Is the current provision efficiently organised in terms of
o Use of resources (human, financial and capital)
o Distance between schools
•
Would you suggest alternative policy or organisational approaches?
•
Are there further comments you would like to make
A lot of interest was expressed in the Review by the stakeholders and a substantial response of
1,065 submissions was received. Table 5.1 provides an overview of the origin of the responses
received.
71
Table 5.1
Overview of submissions received by respondent
category
Category of respondent
No. of
submissions
% of total
Parents
460
43%
Principals
206
19%
Boards of Management
61
6%
Teachers
65
6%
Organisations
48
4%
Past pupils
33
3%
Pupils
13
1%
Public representatives
13
1%
Grandparents
9
1%
School Secretaries
5
< 1%
152
15%
Other
Total
1,065
100%
5.2 Key concerns identified in the submissions on the review of small
primary schools
The submissions raised a number of key concerns and generally expressed support for the
current configuration of small primary schools. Apart from a few exceptions, the submissions
did not support re-organisation. Following are some of the issues raised/key concerns which
emerged in the responses:
•
•
•
Most responses referred to the important role that the small primary school plays in its
community.
Transport concerns were raised in the event of school closures/amalgamations. These
included the question of a longer day for young children, the impact on the environment of
more traffic and the impact on healthy lifestyle where children could no longer walk to
school due to the distance.
A number of submissions were received from organisations concerned with promoting the
use of the Irish language in Gaeltacht areas. They refer to the fact that many Gaeltacht
primary schools are small schools; that there are threats to the continuance of Irish as a
living community language in the Gaeltacht and that any re-organisation of school provision
would need to be done in such a way as not to further erode Irish in the Gaeltacht. Any
72
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.3
decision to amalgamate a small Gaeltacht school would have to be considered in the
context of the language circumstances of the community served by the school.
Submissions suggested that a language policy for Gaeltacht schools be produced based on
the international directive on minority languages
Importance of the small school to the identity of minority faith communities. The small faith
school was regarded as very significant to the life of a local church community. The links to
parish communities are a central part of the maintenance of identity. This was identified as
being particularly true for scattered rural communities but is for urban areas too
Many submissions referred to the individual attention afforded to pupils as a result of small
class sizes
Positive relationships between teachers, children and parents and great community support
for the school
Importance of the small school to give the children a sense of place and history. Many of
the small schools are long-established in their communities and reference was made to
celebrations of 100/150 years existence.
Importance of linkages with local GAA clubs
Many submissions referred to the fact that their school building was either new or recently
refurbished and was in excellent condition so closure would be very wasteful.
Some submissions referred to the fact that the school building is used for local community
purposes
The architectural heritage of the buildings was referred to and the need to conserve this
heritage in the event of closures. Mistakes have been made in the past in this regard.
Reference was made to the fact that small schools in rural areas of low population density
deliver disproportionately high levels of social, education, economic and environmental
benefits relative to the numbers of pupils attending or staff employed, and conversely, the
effects of closures would be devastating to the entire community within which they are
located.
A number of submissions referred to the fact that one teacher schools are not desirable for
reasons including health and safety concerns, teacher isolation and limited opportunities for
pupils to socialise. They called for proactive planning locally and nationally to avoid this
situation. A number of submissions called for more official support from the Department of
Education & Skills to facilitate amalgamations.
Some submissions suggested a re-organisation whereby an administrative Principal would
be appointed to 4/5 small schools and that the Principal would spend one day per week at
each school.
A number of submissions objected to the review of provision of small primary schools on
grounds of value for money solely.
Submissions called for local input into the future of the school; that solutions are not to be
centrally imposed.
Meaning of “community” and “small”
Definitions
It is useful first to reflect on Ireland’s national policy on support for rural communities and to
tease out what is meant by ‘community’ and what is meant by ‘small’ in the context of primary
schools.
Ireland’s national policy on support for rural communities
Ireland’s national policy on support for rural communities is grounded in the White Paper on
Rural Development 1999 (Ensuring the Future - A Strategy for Rural Development in Ireland),
which represents a commitment by Government to ensuring the economic and social well being
of rural communities, providing the conditions for a meaningful and fulfilling life for all people
73
living in rural areas and striving to achieve a rural Ireland in which there are vibrant, sustainable
communities. The White Paper further states that a sustainable rural community should
comprise a range of age, income and occupational groups and facilitates a quality of life which
will make rural communities attractive in which to live and work. It envisages rural communities
enjoying access to education, training and lifelong learning and to an adequate level of social
and other services and infrastructures and equity in terms of opportunity between rural and
urban communities.
What is meant by “community “?
The National Assembly for Wales Rural Development Sub-Committee note that community is
often viewed as a specific geographical area, however, a more appropriate definition may be
community as “being the sum of a range of different interactions between different people,
23
groups of people and others in very different ways.” In Northern Ireland, the 2006 report of
the Independent Strategic Review of Education (Bain report) notes that “a community cannot
simply be equated with the people who live in a geographical area. Communities are defined
not just by geography, but are characterised by common bonds. Local communities may be
distinguished by aspects of life that are not shared but find identity in what they have in
24
common.” In the context of an increasingly globalised world and technological advances, the
all-encompassing definition of community, which is not limited by any geographical boundary,
seems appropriate.
What is a “small school “?
For the purpose of this VFM study, a small school is taken to be one with less than 50 pupils
enrolled.
There is no one commonly agreed definition of what constitutes a “small school”, “mediumsized school” or “large school”. The number of pupils which characterise a school in a particular
size bracket varies from country to country, from researcher to researcher and has also
changed over time. Some examples are as follows:
•
New Zealand
In New Zealand, primary schools with 100 pupils or less are generally considered to be
25
26
small . However, a 1999 report by the New Zealand Educational Review Office defines
“small” schools as those with fewer than 150 students, “smaller” schools as those with
between 26 and 50 and “very small” schools as those with fewer than 26 students.
•
Scotland
27
In Scotland, Wilson & McPake defines a small school as that with an enrolment of less
28
than 120 pupils, while Wilson defines a small school as that with fewer than 100 pupils.
The UK Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills in its 2000 report
on school effectiveness defines a small school as one with less than 100 pupils on the roll
and a very small school as a school with less than 50 pupils.
•
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland a 2008 report by the Rural Development Council categorises schools
into under 55 pupils, 55 to 85 pupils, 86 to 200 pupils and more than 200 pupils to denote
29
very small, small, medium-sized and large schools .
•
Sweden
23
National Assembly for Wales : Rural Development Sub-Committee Inquiry into the Reorganisation
of Schools in Rural Wales , November 2008, p. 23
24
“Schools for the future : Funding, Strategy ,Sharing - Report of the Independent Strategic Review
of Education chaired by Sir George Bain 2006 p. 156
25
New Zealand Ministry for education
26
as cited by R Harker in “School Size and Student Attainment: some New Zealand data”, 2005
27
Managing change in Small Scottish Primary Schools 1998
28
Small Scottish Primary Schools: An endangered species? 2007
29
Striking the Balance: towards a vision and principles of education in rural Northern Ireland – a rural
proofing study. Tyrone: Rural Development Council.(2008)RDC, 2008, p.10 - 11
74
In Sweden, the definition of a small school is “a rural school with at most 50 pupils between
30
6 and 13 years old”.
•
USA
31
In the US, the threshold for small schools is generally much higher. Lee & Loeb , in
researching the effects of school size on teacher attitudes and student achievement in
Chicago elementary schools, defines small schools as those with enrolments of up to 400
pupils.
•
Australia
The definition of small school varies across Australia. For example, in Victoria small
schools are defined as those with 70 or fewer pupils. In New South Wales, small schools
32
have enrolments of 160 pupils or less and in the Northern Territory 133 pupils or less .
In conclusion, the most frequently used definition of a small school by researchers is a school
with an enrolment of up to100 pupils and up to four teachers including the Principal, while that
of a very small school is an enrolment of up to 50 pupils.
5.4
International practice in small school provision
The Committee sought to learn from other countries and how they organise their school
provision. The organisation of schooling in a particular country must be viewed in the context of
that country and given the different context factors direct comparisons need to be viewed with
caution. Context factors include the size and population distribution of a country, its topography,
its system of schooling and school governance and how its primary school system relates to its
pre-school and post-primary school system, system for funding schools, the number of surplus
school places in its system, expected increase/decrease in enrolments due to population
change and the relative wealth of the country. With these points in mind, nevertheless it was
useful to examine the position in some other countries to see how they address challenges
arising from developments such as falling enrolments, financial pressures and curricular
innovation. Ireland has both a large number of schools given the size of our population and a
larger proportion of small schools than many other jurisdictions. Apart from Ireland, other
jurisdictions with a large proportion of small schools include the United Kingdom (Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales), Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden and Finland) and also
Portugal and New Zealand. Following is a brief outline in regard to these countries and their
provision of small schools.
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland has 853 primary schools for its 1.8 million people. 33% of these schools have
fewer than 100 pupils enrolled and about 11% of schools have fewer than 50 pupils enrolled.
(The comparable figures for the Republic of Ireland are 45% and 19% respectively). Schools in
Northern Ireland are managed through the Education and Library Boards.
The report of the independent strategic review of education “Schools for the future: funding,
strategy, sharing” (known as the Bain report 2006) concluded that Northern Ireland had
inherited a pattern of provision that is now both unsustainable educationally or financially. It
concluded that “the process of moving from the current number, size and location of schools to
the sustainable schools envisioned for the future will take time, and careful, imaginative,
sensitive planning. The change cannot, and should not, be achieved hastily. But it is an
inescapable direction of travel, a journey that must be undertaken, and must begin without
30
Sörlin in “Small Rural Schools : a Small Inquiry “ Sigsworth and Solstad, 2005, p.18
School size in Chicago Elementary Schools: effects on Teacher’s attitudes and students’
achievements 2000
32
Ewington et al, 2008, p. 548
31
75
delay. That is why we are recommending that the Department of Education should proceed
with area-based planning from early in the year 2007 until the Education and Skills Authority is
established, and that it should draw up a timetable for the key actions and outcomes in
establishing and implementing the new strategic approach.”
33
In 2008, the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council conducted a Rural Proofing Study .
The report sets out an approach to rural proofing of education provision and examines the
range of key policy and social factors that influence school provision including educational,
economic and physical viability of schools and the impacts on the ground of changes in
education provision. The study sought to investigate the extent of the links between a small
school and its local community, and its contribution to local social capital. “For families and the
wider community the key potential impact…is the loss of connection between the school and
local communities and its possible role in sustaining the social fabric; for example, the
relationship between the school and its families and communities, the capacity for the school to
provide space for other community activities, or the role of the school in sustaining a sense of
continuity and identity. It is important to consider impacts on the capacity of rural areas to
34
maintain or improve social cohesion/social networks”. As part of the study, field research was
conducted comprising qualitative interviews to ascertain the views of 28 individuals
representing a cross section of parents, community representatives, school governors,
principals and staff in four case study schools impacted by amalgamations. The report noted
that “it was clear from the interviews that schools are embedded in community consciousness,
representing the sense of time and history in the community and of connection across families
35
and generations.” “The school may have an indirect role on sustaining sense of community.
36
For example, the relationships built up amongst parents whilst ‘at the school gate’” . The
report concludes that the relationship between closure of a school and sense of community is
not clear cut. “On the one hand, it does not seem to automatically follow that closure will
reduce sense of community – much depends on what else is there. On the other hand,
opening of a new school does not guarantee sustaining sense of community because new
housing developments, which could be associated with the attractiveness of a new school
facility, may bring an influx of incomers and with it a dilution of sense of community.” The
report also found examples of combined efforts across communities and groups to hold events
utilising and involving the school. Findings from the study suggest reorganisation “does not
automatically undo social capital, but may encourage broader patterns of social capital across
37
communities.”
The report notes that from the research that is reported on in the study, “beyond parent/school
relations the nature of the relationship between the school and the community is not well
developed and is not particularly recognised as important by the schools examined both by us
and by RTU (Northern Ireland Regional Training Unit) when set against the main job of
38
educating children”. The report concludes that “the evidence so far, then, is that schools may
39
not on the whole have or pursue strong working linkages with their local communities”.
Northern Ireland has developed the concept of “extended schools”. These schools use the
school building as a community resource to provide a range of services and activities, during or
beyond the school day to help meet the needs of pupils, their families and the wider
community. Such services include homework clubs, preschool childcare, after school
provision, youth services, sports and recreation, arts and cultural activities for children, adult
learning opportunities, offering access to school ICT, library and information facilities to the
community, community centres, health and wellbeing services. The focus is on the school as a
hub of the community. “The additional services a school provides should seek to enhance the
33
Striking the Balance: towards a vision and principles of education in rural Northern Ireland – a rural
proofing study. Tyrone: Rural Development Council.(2008)
34
Ibid p.5 & 6
35
Ibid p. 34
36
Ibid p. 38
37
Ibid p. 41
38
Ibid p. 48
39
Ibid p. 48
76
40
school’s ethos as well as meet the needs of the local community.” According to the Northern
Ireland Department of Education policy an extended school is one which:
• Views working with its pupils, families and community as an essential element in raising
the standard of pupils’ achievement;
• Builds partnerships with neighbouring schools, statutory and community and voluntary
sector organisations operating in the community to develop and deliver better services
for the community as a whole in addition to pupils and their families;
• Helps to strengthen families and communities through providing opportunities for lifelong
learning and personal development;
• Uses its accommodation flexibly and outside of school hours for the good of learners
and the community.
An extension of ‘extended schools’ is the ‘community school’. Community schools in Northern
Ireland are “facilities provided for both school and community use in equal measure. The
investment made through the provision of schools, for example, is then put to maximum use
41
and is particularly appropriate for more remote rural areas.”
The Department of Education in Northern Ireland (DENI) has adopted six criteria and
associated indicators to provide a framework for considering issues of school sustainability and
42
inform preparation of area-based plans . The consideration of sustainability criteria does not
prompt the automatic closure or amalgamation of a school. However, difficulties with one or
more factors indicate the need for a more detailed review and evaluation. Local circumstances
must be considered in determining the most appropriate action.
The six criteria comprise:
1. Quality educational experience - specifies a minimum of 4 teachers at a primary school and
no more than 2 composite year groups in a single classroom at primary level
2. Stable enrolment trends - specifies that ideally a primary school should have at least 7
classrooms (one for each year group)and that the minimum enrolment for schools should
be 140 in urban areas and 105 in rural areas;
3. Sound financial position;
4. Strong school leadership and management - ensuring that the resource allocated is
available so that the principal has at least 1 day per week to attend to leadership and
management duties;
5. Accessibility - specifies home to school transport travel time of less than 30 minutes for
primary pupils (i.e. 1 hour per day in total) and a maximum travel time as part of existing
collaborative arrangements of 30 minutes for a single journey and total of 2 hours per
week; and
6. Strong links with the local community.
Northern Ireland is currently engaged in its own exercise reviewing the viability of its schools at
43
both primary and post-primary level. Following on the Bain report and on the Policy for
Sustainable Schools, the Minister for Education announced in September 2011 the conduct of
a school viability audit. The audit is fundamentally based on the Sustainable Schools policy. It
also recognises that local circumstances need to be taken into account in considering what
action may be appropriate in terms of reorganisation, for example, the remoteness, or
otherwise, of the area in question should be taken into account. School viability audits were
published by the Education and Library Boards (ELBs) in March 2012. These audits consist of
a report that:•
identifies, based on robust and verifiable information and the professional judgement of the
Boards and Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, all primary and post-primary schools
currently facing significant viability challenges in terms of sustainable enrolment trends,
40
Ibid page 52
Ibid page 53
42
Schools for the future: a policy for sustainable schools (Department of Education Northern Ireland
2009)
43
Schools for the future: funding, strategy, sharing – Report of the independent strategic review of
education chaired by Sir George Bain, 2006
41
77
•
•
delivering quality education (including the requirements of the revised curriculum and the
Entitlement Framework) and financial stability;
categorises these schools in terms of the root cause of the problem; and
presents proposals, either already in place or planned, for such schools, to address the
causes of unviability in order to protect the education of the children and young people
enrolled in those schools.
Following on the publication of the viability audits, the ELBs have published plans for
restructuring primary and post-primary education in their areas. The post-primary plans were
published in July 2012 and the primary plans were published in March 2013. Public
consultations have been conducted on the post-primary plans and DENI is in the process of
working with the partners in identifying priority areas for action in the short to medium term. On
the primary front a public consultation exercise is underway until June 2013 to offer parents,
school staff, unions and the wider public an input into the process.
Scotland
Scotland is slightly greater in size and population to Ireland (about 30,000 square miles and 5.2
million people) but it has about 790 islands, of which 90 are inhabited and also has an
extensive mountainous region in the Highlands. The Highlands and the islands have low
population density. In Scotland, there were 2,138 primary schools in 2011/12. Of these, 715
schools (33% of the total) have fewer than 100 pupils enrolled and about 20% of the schools
have fewer than 50 pupils enrolled. The comparable figures for the Republic of Ireland are 46%
and 19% respectively. Over three-quarters of all primary schools in Scotland are located in
areas that are classified as “very remote rural” areas. The schools are managed and funded
through Scotland’s thirty-two local authorities.
Policy-makers in Scotland introduced a presumption against the closure of rural schools, with
the enactment of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. The legislation aims to
sustaining rural schools by ensuring that a closure decision is taken as a last resort and only
after the Local Authority has regard to three factors: all possible alternatives to closure; the
likely implications of closure on the community, including community sustainability and
subsequent use of the school building and facilities; and the likely impact the new
transportation arrangements would have on pupils, other school users and the environment.
The 2008 Scottish Government consultation paper in advance of the legislation notes that “the
presence of a school in its midst can be important in helping a local community to thrive, and
particularly in rural areas, to be more viable and resilient. A rural school is often the ‘hub’ for
44
such communities and their activities.” The paper also notes that local access to educational
opportunities play an important role “in creating a wealthier and fairer country, particularly in
remote and rural communities where the range of opportunities available locally may already be
less than those available in urban areas”. The third aspect cited in the paper relates to the
endeavours to minimise environmental impact and increase active travel as part of a healthier
and greener agenda. Maintaining rural schools can further this agenda. The report continues
“in some communities where there is no longer a shop or post office, the school may be one of
very few services still left within the community, functioning both as a “children’s centre” and as
a focal point for community activities. Closure could have implications for the future
sustainability of the whole community, far beyond the issue of the provision of education. Its
loss would certainly be likely to have a proportionately greater impact than would be the case in
45
an urban area.”
44
The Scottish Government (2008) Safeguarding our rural schools and improving school consultation
procedures – proposals for change to legislation p.4
45
Idem p.11
78
The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 outlined a process for consultation regarding
school closure. The only grounds that a local authority could seek to close a school are on
educational benefit grounds. Financial grounds are not allowed as a main consideration. The
Act provided that the Minister can “call in” or review a closure decision by a local authority and
may refuse to consent to it on certain grounds. The operation of the Act has proved
contentious. In the two year period since enactment in April 2010, local authorities have
consulted on 76 closure proposals. Of these, 34 (45%) were called in by Scottish Ministers.
Following call-in, consent was refused in 9 cases, consent with conditions granted in 19 cases
and unconditional consent granted in 6 cases. Due to the contention that arose, the Minister
announced a moratorium period on school closures in July 2011. At the same time he
announced the appointment of a Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education whose task
was to review the legislation and its application and make recommendations on best practice
on the delivery of education in rural areas. The Commission’s report has recently been
published in April 2013. It makes 38 recommendations relevant to the delivery of education in
rural areas. These are now to be considered by the Scottish Government and the Scottish
Commission for Local Authorities.
Local authorities across Scotland, and particularly those with a large rural catchment, have
introduced the concept of “shared headship (principalship)” over recent years. The reason for
this practice being introduced has largely been due to the lack of numbers of applicants for
advertised posts, coupled with the difficulty of retaining successful applicants once appointed.
The experience in Scotland has been that attraction to, and competition for, teaching Principal
posts can be limited for small schools.
The concept of shared headship first started in the Scottish Borders Council (SBC) in 1998. In
the following ten years, the Scottish Borders Council trialled more and actively sought
opportunities to partner schools when vacancies arose. In 2008, the SBC voted to move to
shared headship for all smaller schools. This was achieved by June 2009 when all primary
school principals in the SBC had become non-teaching principals. Most of the schools in the
SBC with the shared principals have three classes or less and are located in rural areas. But
there are also two larger schools of around 220 pupils partnered with 2-3 teacher schools. The
SBC has recently agreed to set up its first cluster of four schools with one shared Principal.
By 2010/11, seventeen of Scotland’s thirty-two local authorities (mainly the more rural
authorities) had at least one shared headship. The highest number was 33 shared headships
in the Highlands, followed by 21 in the SBC. While the impetus for adopting the shared
headship model was not primarily a financial one, nevertheless the model has achieved modest
savings when all costs are accounted for.
Some of the views expressed as result of the Scottish experience are follows:
Shared headship is still in relative infancy but it appears to be working reasonably well in most
areas. The skills and abilities of the Principal have been found to be critical to the success of
the shared headship. The Principal has to be visible in both their schools, highly organised to
ensure they are in each school as often as possible and be able to adopt different approaches
to using staff strengths across both (or all) schools in a partnership. They are clearly identified
as leader of learning, policy, quality assurance and management across all classes. It is easier
for Principals to meet together, work across schools and contribute to local learning
communities as they are not class committed. In general, the teaching staff prefer the shared
headship model as they do not have to provide cover for a teaching Principal and they have
more support with school planning. Parents were reluctant initially, but are generally satisfied
now. Pupils too have adapted to the model. Where a school with a shared Principal closes, the
children involved have the same staff, the same Principal and have moved to a partner school
where they know the children through cross-school working. This has been found to be less
disruptive and more consensual with parents. Where schools have to close for snow, options
are given to parents to attend the partner school if that is able to open-this is also now 'normal'.
79
Wales
Wales is less than one third the size of the Republic of Ireland and it has a population of 3
million people. Overall, it would have a higher population density than Ireland. Wales has 1,382
primary schools of which 28% have less than 100 pupils enrolled and 12% have less than 50
pupils (Ireland’s comparable figures are 40% and 19% respectively). In Wales, the schools are
funded through the local authorities. In the ten year period from the establishment of the
National Assembly in Wales in 1999 to 2009, 35 small rural schools have been subject to
reorganisation proposals. 31 of these proposals were approved, 12 of them at a local level and
19 by Welsh Ministers. There are significant levels of surplus school places in Wales and this is
the most commonly quoted reason for school reorganisation. The issue of surplus school
places is a growing problem, not only in Wales, but also in the rest of the UK. In parts of rural
th
Wales many of the school buildings date back to the 19 century. They are expensive to run
and maintain and many lack the facilities enjoyed by larger schools. Major refurbishment would
be required to many rural school buildings to deliver the modern curriculum and it is estimated
that investment of up to €3bn could be needed to make all schools fit for purpose.
In response to a petition from a group of parents, the Welsh Assembly’s Rural Development
Sub-Committee undertook an inquiry into the re-organisation of schools in Wales in 2008/9.
The report of the inquiry makes a number of recommendations. It examines the reasons why
small schools may face the threat of closure and discusses the arguments both for and against
them. It covers the process that has to be followed when a closure is proposed. It discusses the
role of all the agencies involved and the views of people who have gone through the process. It
considers alternatives to the closure of schools, looks at existing examples of good practice
and discusses possible ways forward for the process. In terms of school reorganisation, the
Committee concurred with the view that a sense of proportion is required in the debate. “We
are not talking about creating big schools – we are creating schools that are bigger, but we are
talking about schools that are still very small, from communities that are still very small, by all
international and English standards”. It support the view that “the ballpark figure of 60 to 80
pupils, maybe 100 – that is, schools with four or five teachers – would be an acceptable
compromise between the benefits of size and the benefits of smallness without being tiny”. In
its introduction to the report, the Committee state that they are “….firmly of the view that the
primary purpose of any school is to provide the best possible education for the children that it
serves. It is the responsibility of the local education authority to provide world-class education
for all the children in its area. Any additional benefit derived b the community is an advantage.
However, it is not, and never can be, the primary purpose and main driver of policy in this field.
The needs of the children come first.”
In Wales, there is “no presumption in favour or against the closure of any type of school,
46
47
including rural schools” . The Welsh Assembly Government guidance (2009) states that the
case for rural school closure has to be robust and the proposals made in the best interests of
educational provision in the area. Issues to be considered include whether savings can be
made or services can be provided cost effectively to the community by using parts of school
premises for another purpose (co-location of local services within the school to offset the costs
of maintaining the school). A community impact assessment and a Welsh language impact
assessment, assessing the overall effect of a closure on the local community and on standards
in the Welsh language respectively are also required prior to reorganising a rural school.
48
Evans notes that in areas where the Welsh language is strongest, the issue of school
reorganisation is “tied to the whole question of cultural, linguistic and social identity” and
asserts that it is the “most fragile communities, linguistically and culturally, that are most likely
49
to suffer from such closures.”
46
Welsh Assembly Government circular no 021/2009: School organisation proposals. September
2009. p. 11
47
idem
48
Small Rural Schools: A Small Inquiry by Sigsworth and Solstad, 2005, - A Welsh Perspective by
Alwyn Evans p. 16
49
Ibid , p. 17
80
The Welsh Assembly Government guidance on school closure proposals provides that in the
case of rural schools, particular considerations include home to school transport implication and
overall effect on the community of closure and the extent to which the school is serving the
whole community as a learning resource. It states that “an important consideration is the
50
welfare of children if journeys one way would exceed 45 minutes for primary pupils
The Association of Communities in Wales with Small Schools emphasises the need to
integrate schools and other public sector buildings as physical resources for the community to
stimulate community and social activities. While the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG)
Rural Development Sub-Committee believe such an approach is important, they hold the view
that the principal purpose of a school is providing the best education possible for its pupils.
Any further community benefit is an additional advantage but cannot be used as a reason to
support the retention of a school where that school is not providing the best educational
51
opportunities for its pupils .
Research in Wales by Professor Reynolds describes the changes associated with schools
52
reorganisation as a positive thing for children and parents . After reorganisation parents could
view their community as being larger, but not sufficiently large to be disorientating. For children
it meant more friends in the sense that their world has grown, but they still had the resources of
a small village and community, and even this new larger world was still in real and relative
terms quite small.
Scandinavian Countries
Following is an overview of small school organisation in the Scandinavian countries of Norway,
Sweden and Finland. These countries all have relatively high numbers of small schools. They
have some key similarities. Their schooling systems provide a compulsory or comprehensive
school which caters for pupils from the age of about 7 years to 16 years. Some schools have a
primary only element, catering for children from the age of about 7 to 13 years whereas other
schools cater for children from 7 years to 16 years. Their schools are managed by their
municipal authorities. All the countries have relatively large land mass compared with their
population levels and some difficult topography. They have been tackling school organisation
issues and some information follows on each country.
Norway
Norway has a square area of 125,000 square miles (nearly five times the size of the Republic
of Ireland) and its population is almost the same as Republic’s 4.5 million people. However, it is
the second least densely populated country in Europe and its population is widely distributed in
430 municipalities, where many have few inhabitants. Much of the country is dominated by
mountainous or high terrain. In all, there are 3,000 primary and lower secondary schools with
about 600,000 students. In 2011, the breakdown of the 3,000 schools was 1,749 primary only
schools, 758 combined primary/lower secondary schools and 493 schools which were
secondary only. In regard to the primary only schools, in 2011 33% of them had less than 100
pupils and they catered for 7.2% of the overall primary enrolment. The comparable figures for
Irish primary schools in 2011 were that 45% of our schools had less than 100 pupils and they
catered for about 16% of the overall primary enrolment. Norway has many primary/lower
secondary schools with low student numbers but there is a growing trend where there are fewer
schools with less than 100 students, while the number of schools with more than 300 students
is increasing. In Norway in 2011, 55% of primary school pupils were in schools of more than
300 pupils and these schools constituted 27 % of all schools. The comparable figures for
Ireland in 2011 were that 38% of our pupils attend schools of more than 300 pupils and these
schools constitute about 14% of our schools. In Norway, the 430 local municipalities have
responsibility for administering and managing primary and lower secondary schooling. A block
grant system for transferring money from national to municipal level to cover all local services,
50
School organisation proposals: Guidance Welsh Assembly Government Circular 21/2009 p.12.
Welsh Assembly Rural Development Sub-Committee report November 2008 , p. 24
52
Ibid p. 22
51
81
53
including schooling, was introduced in 1986. Solstad notes that in some cases schools and
local communities have been able to save their school by turning it into a private school relying
on grants directly from the Ministry of Education.
Solstad reports that in a Nordic context, Norway has traditionally been regarded as having an
active rural policy. “Various national level initiatives have been taken to stimulate the
infrastructure and economic activities in sparsely populated and peripheral areas in order also
to make such areas and settlements as attractive as possible to young and old alike. Within
the education sector, such measures include the direct coverage by the state level of the actual
municipal costs of running compulsory education, together with positive strategies to recruit
teachers into small, remote schools”.
In Norway, Community Active Schools use the local environment actively as a teaching
resource, cooperates in more traditional ways with the local community and aim to provide
54
relevant and important services for the community . “In the rural context such a school may be
seen as an innovative centre in the struggle for developing sustainable communities”. Solstad
refers to a study by Rønning et al (2003) which identified a number of initiatives in the direction
of community active schools, such as:
• The school as a provider of varied expanded services within education and care, for
example, early years education, study centre for young people and adults
• The school as a local community and service centre, for example, information centre
for municipal services generally, providing office services and workplaces for very
small businesses
• The school as a centre for developing and sustaining local cultural activities.
55
Solstad notes that a follow-up study on the 1997 National Curriculum shows that teachers in
small rural schools “more often report involving local people in learning activities”.
Sigsworth notes that while Norway’s concept of the ‘community active’ school formally
celebrates the idea of the school as the “social and educative centre of the community”,
informally many small schools and their communities develop links that are “mutually beneficial
and characteristically different from those established between large urban institutions and their
catchment areas”. He states a small school “educates the young, contributes to social and
56
cultural life and acts as a gravitational force to retain and attract families”.
Sweden
Sweden has a population of over 9 million people and a square area of almost 174,000 square
miles (over six times the size of Ireland) and half the country is covered by forest. It has a low
population density with most of the population concentrated in the southern half of the country,
mainly in urban areas. The winters in the north are long and cold with a lot of snow. The
population in the northern part of the country is tending to fall. In Sweden, since the 1990s
responsibility for services, including distribution of the single financial grant among various local
services, including schools, was devolved to 290 local municipalities. There is a wide variation
in the population size, with some municipalities containing just a few thousand people and
others containing over 100,000 people.
Accordingly, local authorities can decide on the
organisation of their schools. However, there is an additional option where parents can apply
to the National Agency for Education to establish “free schools” with direct state level funding.
There needs to be a minimum of 20 pupils for such a school and the numbers have grown in
recent years so that they now form over 10% of all the schools. Compulsory schools in
Sweden cater for students from the ages of 7 – 16 years. In 2011/12 there were 4,616 schools
catering for 889,000 students. 35% of the schools had less than 100 pupils and these catered
for 9.4% of the pupils. The comparable figure for Ireland in 2011 was that 45% of primary
schools had fewer than 100 pupils and they catered for about 16% of pupils.
53
Rural Schools: A Small Inquiry by Sigsworth and Solstad, 2005 “Small Rural schools: a Norwegian
perspective by Karl Jan Solstad , 2005, p. 48
54
Ibid , p. 49
55
Ibid , p. 46
56
Rural Schools: A Small Inquiry by Sigsworth and Solstad, 2005 “Summary and Reflections” by Alan
Sigsworth, p.62
82
Sörlin refers to a 1996 research study by the National Agency for Education entitled “equality –
a shared responsibility”, which pointed out “the importance of the school as a symbol for the
community, its importance for local identity and as a factor in the survival of the community. It
also observed that schools are often seen as a central part of the local community’s
infrastructure”. The report also noted that “where there is a school within a rural community,
57
this is seen as synonymous with the area having a future…”
In terms of school reorganisation, local authorities adopt different approaches. Some engage
in consultation with the local community and examine the potential consequences of school
closure for the community. In other cases, Sörlin reports, that “closure is seen solely as an
issue for the school itself and other aspects, such as how it will affect conditions for community
58
growth and the provision of services, are not taken into consideration.”
Sörlin advises that if rural schools are to survive, they should be seen as more than the local
primary school: it must also be developed into a resource for the whole community – “a village
59
meeting place, a common library, a hub for learning, a place for development for all ages.”
Finland
Finland has a population of 5.5 million people and a square area of almost 131,000 square
miles (roughly five times the size of Ireland). Much of the country is afforested and a third of the
country lies north of the Arctic Circle. There are many sparsely populated areas. In winter the
mean temperature remains below freezing and there is permanent snow cover for at least three
months of the year in all parts of the country and much longer in the northern part. The
population of the northern part of the country is tending to fall. The country is relatively wealthy
and educational attainment is high in relation to other OECD countries. In the 1990s,
responsibility for providing education was devolved to the 336 local municipalities. The
municipalities and the principal funding authority for the schools and the funds are raised
through local taxation. In order to increase their tax revenue and enable them maintain their
schools, local municipalities actively encourage young families to move into their area. Within
each municipality, the municipal council may transfer decision-making powers to the school
board or to the administrative staff, including the Principal. The comprehensive school system
provides compulsory schooling for all students from age 7 years to age 16 years. In 2011,
there were 542,000 pupils in 2,870 comprehensive schools. These schools offer more than
education. These are full-service schools. They provide a daily hot meal for every student. They
provide health and dental services. They offer guidance and psychological counselling, and
access to a broader array of mental health and other services for students and families in need.
None of these services is means-tested.
There is a long-term steady programme of rationalisation in Finland and over the past twenty
years or so and this is continuing today. In 1990 there were 4,869 schools. By the year 2000,
this number had decreased to 4,022 schools .By the year 2011 the number had decreased
further to 2,870 schools. This means that in a twenty-one year period there are just over 2,000
schools less. Just over a quarter of all comprehensive schools have less than 50 pupils. The
overall proportion of small schools has been decreasing in recent years. For example, in the
four year period 2004-2008 the percentage of Finnish comprehensive schools with under 50
pupils decreased from 32% in 2004 to 26.5% by 2008. In the same period the numbers of
schools catering for between 50 and 500 pupils decreased whereas there was in increase in
the numbers catering for 500+ pupils. During 2007 a total of 121 comprehensive schools closed
down or merged with another educational institution. Of these, 24 of the schools had less than
20 pupils, 58 had between 20 and 49 pupils while 32 had at least 50 pupils. In the four year
period 2006 – 2009 following are the figures for new schools, closures and amalgamations in
the Finnish comprehensive school sector:
57
Rural Schools: A Small Inquiry by Sigsworth and Solstad, 2005 - Small Rural Schools : a Swedish
Perspective by Ingrid Sörlin p. 21
58
Ibid , p. 19
59
Ibid , p. 22
83
•
•
•
30 new schools
327 schools closed
131 schools formed from amalgamations
In 2011/2012, 22.5% of Finnish comprehensive schools had less than 50 pupils and 40% had
less than 100 pupils.
On average a total of between 50 and 100 schools close annually in Finland. Municipalities
have to engage in a statutory consultation process concerning school closures and the school
closure process is quite drawn-out in most instances.
60
Kalaoja and Pietarinen (2009) reviews research on small rural primary schools in Finland and
notes that the “historical function of small rural schools in Finland has traditionally been one of
a community centre, serving as a meeting place and a social and cultural mid-point for
community activities...the interaction between the small rural school and the surrounding
community has been seen as an important social asset.”. Based on the Finnish research they
reviewed, the authors note that “village schools have been forced to consciously take part in
the development of the surrounding community by functioning as a hub for community
activities…Communities rely on the local school to actively engage itself in local community
events and to cooperate with other public sectors, organisations and people. Not only is the
school expected to function as a social agent and to support the social cohesion of the village,
but also emphasis is placed on encouraging the pupils to choose responsible, action-oriented
strategies which will solve concrete problems in the local community.” The authors conclude
that on the basis of the research reviewed, a significant variation can be perceived between
61
small rural schools in regard to their school-community activity. The authors cite Solstad
(1996) which identified three different categories to describe school-community relationship:
“community-ignorant school, community-passive school and community-active school” and that
half of small rural schools in Finland have reached the level of community-active school.
Portugal
Portugal has a population of 10.6 million people and a square area of just over 36,000 square
miles (about one third larger than Ireland). Since 2003 its local municipalities have been
accorded a role in the organisation of schooling. There are 278 mainland municipalities.
Portuguese society has long been marked by low levels of education. As recently as the mid1970s, one out of five people of working age in Portugal was illiterate. In terms of school
organisation, until relatively recent times Portugal had a large number of small, poorly-funded,
frequently isolated schools which performed badly in achievement tests. In towns and cities,
schools were often so crowded that they had to operate a double shift. From the 1980s
onwards a series of policy decisions were adopted to re-organise provision by creating “school
clusters” bringing together several schools into one educational project. A typical cluster would
have a number of pre-school units and primary schools feeding into a post-primary school. The
initial focus was on closing the smallest schools that had fewer than 10 pupils or had higherthan-average grade repetition. Thanks to their broader range of staff and better facilities, the
clusters help to improve work organisation and teacher collaboration, thereby providing better
and more extensive services for students. The Ministry of Education and municipalities work
together to create clusters, deciding on the construction of new schools on the basis of
numbers of students and schools, geographical factors and demographic indicators. As a result
of successive policy orientations and the reorganisation of school districts, the number of
primary schools in Portugal has dropped from 10,800 in 1988 to approximately 5,710 today.
The programme is continuing in so far as in 2010 a resolution prescribed the closure of schools
with less than 21 students on the grounds that they “limit students’ academic success” and
60
Small rural primary schools in Finland: A pedagogically valuable part of the school network in
International Journal for Educational Research 48 (2009)
61
Solstad, K. J. (1996). Equity at risk planned educational change in Norway: Pitfalls and progress.
Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
84
62
“present rates of school failure above the national average.” . It also stated that in these
school, “students and teacher are less likely to succeed and develop; they also offer few
opportunities to interact”.
New Zealand
New Zealand has a population of 4.4 million people. Its land area is over three times the size of
Ireland. Most of the population (72%) lives in sixteen main urban areas, a further 6% lives in
secondary urban areas and the remaining 22% lives in rural areas. In 2011/12 there were 1,997
primary schools with almost 435,000 pupils. Of these, 19% had 50 pupils or less and 33% had
100 pupils or less.
The New Zealand experience is that, over time and in the absence of intervention, small
schools tend to become smaller and the number of small schools tends to increase. The
reasons relate to rural depopulation and also to pupils travelling to other more distant and
larger schools, perceived to have better education quality. The New Zealand government has
three principal reasons for school re-organisation, namely educational standards, operational
costs and spare capacity in terms of property. Following are some points about each of these
issues.
As regards educational standards, in the New Zealand education system, legislation provides a
range of interventions that may be used to address risks to the operation of individual schools
or to the welfare or educational performance of the pupils. The experience in New Zealand is
that the likelihood of a school being subject to a statutory intervention is significantly greater for
the smallest schools (under 35 pupils). Also, the likelihood of a school having to be inspected
more frequently than the norm increases significantly for the small schools. School inspections
in New Zealand are carried out by the Education Review Office (ERO). Its functions would be
similar to the inspectorate in the Irish education system. Generally, the ERO reports on
schools every three years. Where a school is experiencing problems, the reporting cycle is
less than three years. The likelihood of schools being on an ERO reporting cycle of less than
three years increases significantly for schools with rolls smaller than about 35 pupils.
The New Zealand authorities have identified a relationship between school size and cost of
education provision. The costs involved are operational grants and teacher salaries. Primary
schools with 100 pupils enrolled cost 10% more to operate than the average cost of all primary
schools. As school enrolment declines below 100 pupils, operational costs increase further.
Very high costs have been identified for the operation of schools with enrolment below 30
pupils. In the absence of a strategy to deal effectively with increasing numbers of small schools,
increasing operational costs are incurred.
There is an ongoing increase in school property that is surplus to requirements. An analysis of
school property capacity in relation to school rolls in November 2009 showed that there were
270 schools in New Zealand that utilise between 50% and 70% of their available capacity.
There were a further 330 schools that utilise less than 50% of their available capacity. On this
basis, 25% of all schools had surplus capacity which was at least 30% greater than
requirements.
In the New Zealand system, incentives are provided to encourage mergers and closures of
schools. The incentives involve reinvesting the savings made as a result of school closures
and mergers, into the schools attended by the pupils whose former schools have been closed
or merged. This system is set out in a policy known as the Education Development Initiative
Policy (EDI). The amounts reinvested to the benefit of pupils’ education can be significant,
depending on the number of pupils involved in the school closure or merger. Using the per
pupil figures detailed in the EDI Policy, if a school with a roll of 60 pupils merges with another
62
Council of Ministers Resolution 44/2010
85
school (the continuing school), all the pupils at the continuing school benefit from an EDI grant
of about €250,000.
Boards of trustees may seek voluntary closure of schools that, as a result of decline in
enrolment, are no longer viable. Boards make the judgement that children’s educational needs
will be better met if the school closes. In such situations, there are other reasonably convenient
schools that pupils may attend. Schools closed or merged as a result of board initiatives since
2003 are summarised as follows:
2003
8
2004
12
2005
10
2006
9
2007
6
2008
2
2009
4
A network review is a fast-tracked Education Development Policy Initiative (EDI) process which
is initiated centrally rather than waiting for communities to volunteer. This process was much
more contentious because at the end of the process the Minister decided what was to come
next, rather than wait for a community to decide. This increased considerably the number of
schools that were closed or amalgamated.
In the period from 2002 – 2004, the Government at the time agreed to reviews of networks of
schools being undertaken in a number of districts in New Zealand. These districts were
identified as being subject to significant school age population decline. As a result of this
decline, schools in the networks of schools serving those districts tended to:
•
•
•
•
have significant school property surplus to entitlement;
reduce spending on teaching resources in order to maintain surplus school property;
compete against each other to maintain a share of a declining number of children in the
district; and
become increasingly subject to the challenges faced by small schools
The reviews sought to improve the quality of education in each of the districts by merging and
closing schools, making savings in the cost of education provision, and using the EDI
methodology to provide those savings to the continuing schools. The continuing schools then
used the additional funding to enhance the quality of education provided to children.
In each district, a facilitator worked with a reference group to consider alternative ways in which
the district network of schools could be reconfigured. The expectation was that the
reconfigured network would have fewer schools which would still provide reasonably
convenient access for children, and in which education provision would be strengthened. The
continuing schools would be stronger as a result of more and better teaching resources, more
children, and more teachers.
In each district, communities were consulted about the possible options for reconfiguration and
asked to comment and indicate a preferred option. The Minister of Education considered the
options, considered community feedback about the options, decided the option that would be
used to configure the district network of schools, and announced which schools would close,
which would merge, and which would continue. The process of developing options and
consulting with communities took several months to complete. The Minister’s decisions were
made and announced by about mid-year and were implemented at the start of the following
school year.
While some districts saw the local review as an opportunity to strengthen education provision,
in some other districts there was strong antipathy to the process and the outcomes. In those
districts, some people struggled with the scope and pace of change. They could not
conceptualise how what they had could be improved. As a result of these difficulties,
communities registered strong disapproval of the Government and of the Minister in particular.
Since in 2004, there were 12 reviews of networks of schools being conducted simultaneously,
change on this scale meant that there was widespread disapproval of the scope and pace of
education change. As a result, when the 2004 round of reviews were completed, the Minister
86
announced that there would be a moratorium on further reviews of networks of schools for a
period of five years.
In summary, the following points should be noted about the reviews of networks of schools
conducted in New Zealand in 2002 – 2004:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The reviews did address surplus school capacity in regions that had been subject to
significant population decline.
In some districts, the reviews were welcomed as an opportunity to address long
standing educational issues to do with access, school size and quality of education.
In some districts, communities struggled to conceptualise how local education could be
improved. This presented some real challenges to facilitators in widening people’s
understanding.
In some but not all districts, the community sense of “ownership or proprietorship” of
“their” school was a serious impediment to collaborative effort aimed at improving
educational opportunities and educational outcomes for students across districts.
A combination of rapid change, difficulties on the part of some in some communities in
comprehending how the changes could improve learning outcomes for students, and
intensely held beliefs gave rise to very large volumes of Ministerial correspondence.
The implementation of the Minister’s decisions in some districts was a much larger task
than had been envisaged. The scale of the works to be undertaken in those districts
required the appointment of project managers and implementation facilitators.
The implementation work load on boards, principals and teachers initially tended to
divert attention, in some schools, away from the desired gains in educational quality
that were the primary objectives of the reviews. Accordingly, in some schools, it took
two to three years before there was evidence of the expected gains in educational
outcomes for students.
In some districts, surplus school property is still in the disposal process.
There is anecdotal evidence that, when school communities are asked if they would
prefer to return to the education provisions that they had prior to the network reviews,
the answer is a definite, “No”. The gains made as a result of the reviews in terms of
facilities, resources, quality of education and sustainability have come to be recognised
and appreciated.
Studies undertaken in review districts following network reviews show significant
“educational lift” for student learning outcomes.
The principal effect of the moratorium on reviews of networks of schools has been to severely
limit ways of ensuring the provision of sustainable quality education in districts subject to
ongoing school age population decline. The moratorium also had the effect of creating
considerable uncertainty about what the Ministry should or shouldn’t do to manage declining
school age populations.
Currently, as school age populations continue to decline in some districts, as there is an
increasing number of small schools, and as those small schools continue to become smaller,
the New Zealand system is faced with a need to answer some fundamental questions about
dealing with school age population decline such as the role of the Ministry of Education and
whether intervention is required on a case by case or district-wide basis.
The question of rationalisation of small schools is still on the Government agenda. In the
briefing to the new Minister for Education in December 2011 the following statement was
included:
“Hard decisions will need to be taken about non-essential schools in order to free up resources
to maintain essential small schools and meet the need for schooling in areas of growth. Small
schools are relatively expensive to maintain. Some small schools in rural areas are essential,
but many small schools are in urban or semi-urban areas. We need to consider how the
provision of schooling areas with declining rolls can be rationalised in a way that is more costeffective and offers better learning opportunities to students. Successful improvements in the
schooling system can only be achieved if we take those working in the sector with us. It will be
important to consider how the scale of change necessary in schooling can be successfully
87
managed, and how we can achieve buy-in from teachers, principals, boards and school
communities.”
Conclusion
In conclusion there is not one simple answer to the key question posted at the outset, namely
“How would re-organisation of provision impact on the communities served by small primary
schools?” It is clear from the consultations that the review generated a great deal of concern in
communities. Research on school-community relationships is scarce, even in an international
context. There is not a clear-cut relationship between the closure or opening of a school and
community. “Parents congregating at a (school) gate does not necessarily constitute a school63
community relationship”. On the one hand, it does not seem to automatically follow that
closure will reduce sense of community – much depends on what else is there. On the other
hand, opening of a new school does not guarantee sustaining sense of community because a
new school could be required to cater for an influx of incomers and with that comes a dilution of
the sense of community. The available research is limited to case studies which could not be
used in terms of general conclusions. Substantial research is needed in this area. Other
jurisdictions which face similar challenges to Ireland in regard to school organisation do
consider the question of the community impact of closure, among a range of factors. These
other jurisdictions are engaged in the reorganisation process, with varying degrees of success.
5.5 Findings
A public consultation process was conducted inviting submissions concerning the Review. A
very large response was received and in general, most submissions did not support reorganisation. Most respondents indicated they were happy with the status quo and don’t want
change or they had concerns about change. Chief among these concerns were the possible
effect that re-organisation would have on communities, possibility of increased travel times,
concerns about impact on the Irish language and the importance of small schools to minority
faith denominations.
In the context of an increasingly globalised world and technological advances, an all
encompassing definition of community, which is not limited by geographic boundary, seems
appropriate. There is no one commonly agreed definition of what constitutes a small school but
the most frequently-used definition of small schools is one with an enrolment of up to 100
pupils and up to four teachers including the Principal, while that of a very small school is an
enrolment of up to 50 pupils.
The Committee sought to learn from other countries that have a relatively high number of small
schools and how they address questions of school organisation. Eight jurisdictions with a
relatively large proportion of small schools were identified. The eight areas consist of three
areas in the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), three Scandinavian
countries (Norway, Sweden, and Finland) plus Portugal and New Zealand. In examining the
position in each of these jurisdictions it quickly became evident that each country operates in its
own unique context. These contexts include the size and population distribution of a country, its
topography, its system of schooling and school governance and how its primary school system
relates to its pre-school and post-primary school system, system for funding schools, the
number of surplus school places in its system, expected increase/decrease in enrolments due
to population change and the relative wealth of the country. Therefore direct comparisons are
not appropriate. Nevertheless, the brief examination showed that Ireland does have a high
proportion of schools relative to its population when compared with other jurisdictions and that
compared with other jurisdictions a higher number of these are small schools. In 2011/12 45%
of Ireland’s primary schools have an enrolment of less than 100 pupils and 19% have an
enrolment of fewer than 50 pupils. Ireland is also unique among the countries examined in that
63
“Respect and responsibility: Review of research on small rural schools in England by Linda
Hargreaves International Journal of Educational Research Vol 48 Issue 2, 2009 pages 117-128
88
it has experienced very strong demographic growth in recent years and this is projected to
continue into the medium term.
In regard to the jurisdictions examined in the United Kingdom, 33% of Northern Ireland’s
primary schools have an enrolment of less than 100 pupils. Northern Ireland has determined
already that its pattern of provision is unsustainable educationally or financially and is currently
actively engaged in a strategic area planning exercise at primary and post-primary level. In
Scotland a process is currently underway reviewing the Scotland (Schools) (Consultation) Act
2010 and its application and to examine how deliver of rural education can maximise
attainment and outcomes to give pupils the best life chances. 33% of Scotland’s primary
schools have less than 100 pupils and 20% have an enrolment of less than 50 pupils. In Wales
there is an existing process for reorganising schools and the Welsh Assembly Government has
issued guidance in this regard. 28% of Welsh primary schools have less than 100 pupils
enrolled and 12% have less than 50 pupils.
In regard to the Scandinavian countries, Norway has a lower proportion of schools of less than
100 pupils (33%) compared to Ireland’s 45% even though Norway is five times the size of
Ireland and it has the second lowest population density in Europe. The position is rather similar
in Sweden where 35% of schools have less than 100 pupils. Finland has been steadily reorganising its school provision over the past twenty years or so. This is evidenced by the fact
that in 1990 it had 4,869 comprehensive schools catering for students from age 7 – 16 years
and this number had reduced to 2,870 schools in 2011 ( a reduction of over 2,000 schools). A
steady programme of rationalisation continues with an annual average of 70-80 closures and
30 amalgamations in recent years. In this context the numbers of smallest schools (under 50
pupils) are decreasing while the numbers of schools catering for over 500 pupils are increasing.
Portugal has engaged in a programme of school reorganisation for the past twenty years or so.
As a result of successive policy orientations and reorganisation of school districts, the number
of primary schools in Portugal has dropped from 10,800 in 1988 to approximately 5,710 today.
New Zealand has identified particular problems with the educational performance and running
costs of its very small schools. In 2009/10 (the latest year for which figures could be sourced),
37% of New Zealand’s schools had 100 pupils or less and 20% had 50 pupils or less. New
Zealand has a programme of incentives to encourage school mergers and closures whereby it
reinvests savings made as a result of school closures and mergers back into the local school
community involved. In the period 2002-2004 the Government took an active approach into
reviewing networks of schools. The outcome was generally successful in the long-term but the
project encountered a lot of resistance as a result of the scope and pace of the change. The
result was that when the 2004 round of reviews was complete, the Minister announced a
moratorium on further reviews for a period of five years. The problem of a high number of small
schools still persists and is on the agenda of the current government in New Zealand.
In conclusion, proposals to re-organise schools raise anxiety and strong feelings and debate
within communities, particularly in regard to rural areas. This is the general experience in
Ireland and in other countries that also face the challenge of re-organising their school
provision and closing some smaller facilities. Other countries have been tackling the question of
re-organising their school provision with varying degrees of success. Some countries such as
Finland and Portugal are remarkably successful whereas New Zealand has been relatively
unsuccessful to date.
There is no clear-cut answer to the impact that reorganisation would have on the communities
served by small primary schools.
89
Chapter 6: Programme Objectives – Extent of
Achievement and Effectiveness
Introduction
This Chapter sets out to examine the extent to which the objectives of small primary school provision
have been achieved and to comment on the effectiveness of achievement. Chapter 3 outlined the
State’s general approach to primary school provision and outlined the background reasons for the
relatively high proportion of small schools within the overall provision. An assessment of effectiveness
involves an examination of the relationship between outputs and outcomes. A series of key questions
that were also outlined in Chapter 4, designed to track these effectiveness indicators will be
addressed in this Chapter in order to contribute to an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the
provision and continued operation of small primary schools. This fulfils the first and third term of
reference. The outputs and outcomes, and the effectiveness indicators used to measure the
relationship between them were identified in Chapter 4 as part of the application of the Programme
Logic Model (PLM). These were as follows:
•
Performance indicators on the quality of education received by pupils in small
primary schools
•
Distances travelled to school by pupils in small primary schools
•
The impact of small primary schools on the community they serve
This Chapter examines the first two indicators above, namely the question of the quality of education
received and the pupil travel distances. The third indicator is examined separately in Chapter 5
.
Key Questions
Key question 1:
Do small schools provide more effective educational outcomes
compared to large schools?
Key question 2:
Is it possible to have a more efficient organisation of provision
that preserves reasonable pupil travel times and respects
parental choice on school ethos and language of instruction?
6.1
International research on correlation of educational outcomes and
school size
There is a vast body of literature on school size. However, many research studies on school
size display theoretical, methodological and data analysis problems which qualify all the
reported findings.
90
The most basic issue relates to the lack of common terminology. Much of the research in
this area originated from the US, where schools with up to 500 pupils can be considered
small in the context of the size of other schools. There is also inconsistency in relation to
the indicators of school size used between studies. For example, educational outcome
measures such as average test scores are one method of estimating outcomes in relation to
school size. However, pupil achievement is a function of many factors including pupil, family
and community characteristics, school-specific factors as well as physical factors such as
school size. Many studies fail to account for all these factors. In addition, pupil achievement
is cumulative, with performance this year being affected by the school and non-school inputs
of this year but also of previous years, complicating measurement further. In addition, pupil
outcomes are not one-dimensional and encompass both academic and non-academic
outcomes such as pupil-teacher relationships, pupil self-concept and self-esteem and pupil
participation in extra-curricular activities. In terms of measurement standardised tests tend
to be used as a tool for measuring pupil outcomes, which cannot capture all desirable
outcomes. In addition, many of the widely cited authors are educationalists rather than
researchers and use an advocacy research style, arguing either for or against the
reorganisation of small schools. Therefore the studies are exposed to intentional or
unintentional bias in the research design or data analysis to support their perspective.
Another difficulty is the reliance on qualitative research methods such as observation, case
studies and interviews, which requires a critical analysis of the reported findings.
Accordingly, caution needs to be exercised in applying the findings of such research to Irish
primary schools.
The interaction between school size and educational outcomes is complex. The findings
from international studies on the relationships between school size and curriculum delivery
and educational outcomes remain inconclusive due to the difficulties in identifying a direct
causal link between school size and these variables. Two of the most important factors
impacting on educational outcomes consistently arising from international research in this
area are the socio-economic status of the community and teacher effectiveness and these
are considered to have more of an impact than school size. An additional complexity is that
small schools are likely to be characterised by smaller class sizes; composite class teaching
and learning; and teaching Principals. The impact of these features on the educational
outcomes of pupils is difficult to determine. For example, in relation to composite class
teaching and learning, much of the evidence is weak as researchers have been unable to
isolate the effect of composite class teaching from a variety of other factors which may
impact on pupil development. However, most researchers accept that grouping pupils into
composite classes is unlikely to affect their performance significantly. In the Irish context,
Shiel & Kelly (2001) report no significant differences between fourth class pupil Mathematics
achievement in single-grade and composite classes in small schools. In terms of teaching in
composite classes, Wilson (2003) notes that teaching in this environment is reported to be a
more complex activity than teaching in single-grade classes and demands a wider range of
organisational and instructional skills (pp. 26). However, Mulryan-Kyne (2004) reports from
her survey of a sample of Irish teachers working in two-teacher schools that most agreed
that the multi-grade setting is one in which effective teaching and learning can take place.
As part of the ‘Growing Up in Ireland’ national longitudinal study of children, researchers
from the ESRI examined the influence of multi-grade teaching on the academic and social
outcomes of 9 year olds. Among the factors taken into account were child/family level (such
as cchild gender, family social class, family income, one parent family, parental education,
number of books in the home, newcomer status and learning disability), school level (such
as region, DEIS status and school gender mix) and teacher level (such as teaching
experience and class size). The researchers conclude that academically, being taught in a
multi-grade class has little effect. Socially, there is some indication of differences – mainly
for girls. Girls being taught in multi-grade classes are more negative in their self-concept in
terms of popularity and school performance.
For the reasons set out above, the Committee decided to focus on findings from research
conducted in Irish primary schools, namely that conducted by the Department’s Inspectorate
and by the Educational Research Centre. The Department’s Inspectorate evaluates the
quality of education delivered by means of the school inspection system. The Educational
Research Centre is commissioned by the Department to conduct periodic national
91
assessments of English reading and mathematics on a representative sample of pupils in
target classes.
6.2
Summary of the findings of the Department’s inspectorate on the effect
of school size on factors related to teaching and learning in primary
schools
At the request of the VFM Steering Committee, the Evaluation Support and Research Unit
(ESRU) of the Inspectorate, Department of Education and Skills, conducted an analysis of
school-level quality data that was collected by the Inspectorate in a sample of primary schools.
These data are generated during regular inspection activities, and are maintained by the
Inspectorate as a record of the quality of educational provision in the schools evaluated. The
focus of the ESRU analysis was to investigate if relationships exist between these data and
school size, as given by a school’s enrolment. ESRU undertook this analysis and produced a
substantial report, which was published separate to this report. The following is an overview of
the ESRU study.
Summary of data sources by school size
Schools were divided into two groups based on their enrolment, which was sourced from the
Department’s primary schools’ database. The two groups were (a) schools with an enrolment of
49 pupils or less, and (b) schools with an enrolment of 50 pupils or more.
Background to the data analysis
The following four data sources from recent inspections were used in the analysis:
1. Data based on inspectors’ judgements arising from incidental (unannounced) one-day
inspections of primary schools
2. Data based on inspectors’ judgements arising from whole-school evaluations (WSEs) in
primary schools
3. Data from questionnaires completed by parents during whole-school evaluations
4. Data from questionnaires completed by pupils during whole-school evaluations.
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show the total number of inspections and questionnaires respectively,
relating to each data source for the two school-size groupings.
92
Table 6.1
No. of incidental inspections/whole school evaluations examined
Data source
Number
of
inspections
for
schools with 49
pupils or less
Number
of
inspections
for
schools with 50
pupils or more
Total Number of
inspections
Incidental inspections
119
506
625
Whole-school
evaluations
74
287
361
Incidental inspections are unannounced one-day inspections that inspectors carry out in primary
schools to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of aspects of the education provided in schools
under the normal conditions of a regular school day. The focus is on the quality of the education
experienced by the learner.
Whole-school evaluations (WSEs) in primary schools involve evaluating the work of the school under
the areas of management, planning, curriculum provision, teaching and learning, and student support.
Information is gathered from a range of sources within a school in order to ensure that judgements
made by inspectors are valid, reliable and consistent. Following the evaluation, a WSE report is
prepared in which strengths are acknowledged and clear recommendations are made in relation to
the further development of educational provision in the school.
Table 6.2
No. of parent/pupil questionnaires examined
Parent
questionnaires
Number of schools in
which questionnaires
were administered
Schools
with
pupils or less
49
Schools
with
pupils or more
50
Total
Number of
questionnaires
Completed
Schools
with
pupils or less
49
Schools
with
pupils or more
50
Total
Pupil
questionnaires
23
26
164
173
187
199
432
358
14,442
11,506
14,874
11,864
93
These data sources incorporate a significant set of numerical data that has been collected by
the Inspectorate. Since September 2010, the surveying of pupils and parents by means of
questionnaires has become a formal part of all WSEs conducted in primary schools. Data
relating to incidental inspections and whole-school evaluations have a longer timeframe.
October 2009 was when data first became available for incidental inspections, while data for
whole-school evaluations span a period of approximately three years.
Analysis of the Data
Within the four data sources, the analysis focused primarily on the areas most directly
connected to pupils’ learning, as assessed by inspectors: quality of planning; quality of
teaching; quality of learning and quality of assessment. All the data were segregated according
to school size. In addition, the data include an analysis of the quality of English lessons and the
quality of Mathematics lessons, as assessed by inspectors during whole-school evaluations.
Conclusion of the ESRU analysis
The report indicates that, in the sample sets that were examined, there appear to be
differences between small schools and larger schools in some aspects of the quality of
provision for pupils. However, these differences are small and it was found that they are not
directly associated with the size of the school. Statistical analysis indicates that there is no
significant relationship between the two school-size groups and these apparent differences.
The ESRU report concludes by stating,
“Notwithstanding the limitations acknowledged in respect of factors not examined in the
analysis and the overall limitations inherent to this report, it appears that school size is
not a significant variable that gives rise to effects in the areas that were examined in this
report.” (p.20)
6.3
Findings from the Educational Research Centre
A.
National Assessment Data
National assessments are conducted by the Educational Research Centre on behalf of the
Department and are designed to measure performance at system-level. There have been a
total of thirteen national assessments conducted over the period 1972 to 2009 (seven in
mathematics and six in English reading).
•
•
•
•
The purpose of the National Assessment 2009 was defined as to:
Establish current reading and mathematics standards of Second and Sixth class pupils;
Provide high quality and reliable data for the DES to assist in policy review and formulation
and in decisions regarding resource allocation;
Examine school, teacher, home background and pupil characteristics, and teaching methods
which may be related to reading and mathematics achievement;
Provide a basis against which to compare outcomes of future assessments of English reading
and mathematics at Second and Sixth classes
It is important to note that the national assessments are designed to be representative of
pupils, rather than schools. Table 6.3 summarises the breakdown of small schools under 50
pupils. Consequently, while Ireland has a relatively high proportion of small schools (20%),
these schools have a relatively low proportion of the overall pupils (4%) which could be
potentially included in the national assessment tests.
94
Table 6.3
Pupil distribution according to size of school 2009/10
Size (Pupils)
Total Schools
% Schools
Total
Pupils
% Pupils
0–7
7
0.22%
45
0.01%
8 – 11
9
0.28%
84
0.02%
<12
16
0.51%
129
0.03%
12 – 23
144
4.55%
2,667
0.55%
<24
160
5.06%
2,796
0.58%
24 – 49
482
15.23%
17,193
3.56%
<50
642
20.28%
19,989
4.14%
50 – 99
836
26.41%
62,029
12.85%
<100
1,478
46.70%
82,018
17.00%
≥100
1,687
53.30%
400,524
83.00%
Total
3,165
100%
482,542
100%
In all the assessment tests except the 2009 tests, there had to be at least 5 pupils in a class
group. That would have militated against the inclusion of pupils from the very small school.
This did not apply in the 2009 tests. The sample of pupils for inclusion in the National
Assessments in 2009 was done in two stages. Firstly, the schools were selected and then
intact classes from those schools were selected. The target population consisted of all second
and sixth class pupils in mainstream (ordinary) classes in primary schools in Ireland in May
2009. To ensure that a representative sample was selected, schools were categorised
according to enrolment size, whether they were included in disadvantaged schemes, the
school’s location and language of instruction and proportion of female pupils. In total 150
schools were selected which were considered to be representative of the overall pupil base.
Only two schools fitted the category of less than 50 pupils. It is not possible to draw
conclusions based on two schools on a snap shot study.
B.
ERC report analysing educational attainment in disadvantaged rural schools (2009)
64
The ERC conducted a study in 2009 which analysed pupil achievement in English and
Mathematics in respect of schools included in the rural dimension of the Schools Support
Programme.
The Schools Support Programme is a programme which offers additional
support to schools which have higher than average concentrations of pupils who could be
regarded as disadvantaged from an educational perspective. At primary level, there are
three strands to the programme. Two of the strands encompass schools in an urban setting
and the third strand is for the rural school. There are 334 schools in total in the rural strand.
98 of these schools have enrolment of less than 50 pupils. The ERC found in their 2009 study
that the pupils in the sample of schools in the rural strand of the schools support programme
performed significantly better than pupils in the sample of schools in the urban strand. It was
only possible to make limited progress in identifying the factors that can account for the
64
Educational Disadvantage in Primary Schools in Rural Areas Report No. 1 An analysis of English
reading and Mathematics Achievement in schools in the Rural Dimension of the Schools Support
Programme.
95
superior performance of the rural sample. There was no evidence that small school size
mitigated the effect of poverty on educational outcomes. The ERC did conclude however that
the presence of relatively large numbers of pupils from some counties in the West of Ireland
in the rural sample could account for some, but not all, of the gap between the urban and rural
samples. The ERC concludes that future work in the area of educational disadvantage in
rural areas will need to focus on the extent to which the superior performance of pupils in rural
schools (compared to their urban counterparts) can be attributed to a variety of factors. In
particular, is there a difference impact of poverty in urban and rural settings? School factors
will also need to be examined (e.g., do teachers in rural schools devote more time to literacy
and numeracy than teachers in urban schools?). The ERC concludes that it is possible, of
course, that home and school factors both play a part and indeed may interact with each
other. It is also possible that other factors (e.g., the level of support provided by the local
community) may be relevant
Key Question 2:
Is it possible to have a more efficient organisation of provision that includes
reasonable pupil travel times and respects parental choice on school ethos and
language of instruction?
Approach
This question is approached in two ways. Firstly, the distance between schools of the same
type and secondly information from the School Transport scheme.
Firstly, in order to develop a methodology for conducting a detailed analysis of the
implementation issues for the possible suite of options for restructuring small schools it is
necessary to analyse the 586 schools in terms of the key groupings identified in Chapter 3.
The distinctive features of each group mitigate against comparison with another group.
Information on the travel distance to school undertaken by every primary school pupil in the
State is not readily available. Since 1986 population census data has collected information on
children’s means of travel to school. The general data shows an increasing trend in children
travelling as car passengers and a decreasing trend in children walking or travelling by bus.
The latest data shows that over half of all children are driven to school as car passengers and
that a further quarter of children walk. The remainder either travel by bus/bicycle/ lorry/train
or do not state their means of travel. In the absence of detailed information on every pupil, it is
considered reasonable to measure the distance between schools within each of the groups
and so to gauge the extent to which alternative options are available for each group. These
issues are addressed in 6.4
Secondly, the State operates a school transport scheme for primary school pupils which has
the objective of supporting the transport to and from school, of children who would have
difficulty travelling, for reasons of distance, to their nearest school if transport is not provided.
It is relevant to consider how this scheme operates in the context of addressing the key
questions. The school transport scheme is addressed in 6.5.
6.4
Analysis of the 582 small schools into seven groups
The features of the seven key groupings are described below in Table 6.4 as follows:
96
Table 6.4
Classification of the small schools (based on 2009/10 enrolment levels)
Group
Island
Gaeltacht
Catholic
Yes
No
Yes
No
1
Catholic, English
medium, nonGaeltacht
√
√
2
Church of Ireland
√
√
√
3
√
Total no
of small
schools
Ethos
Church
of Ireland
Presbyterian
Multidenomination
al
423
√
74
√
√
51
√
13
Gaeltacht
4
Island
√
65
5
Presbyterian
√
√
6
All-Irish medium,
Catholic ethos,
non-Gaeltacht
√
√
7
Multi66
denominational
√
√
Total
13
569
582
51
531
582
9
√
7
√
5
√
494
74
9
5
582
582
65
The island schools are identified separately for geographical reasons. Eight of them are in Gaeltacht areas and operate an all-Irish medium of instruction. Five of them are
outside the Gaeltacht and operate an English medium of instruction. All thirteen are Catholic in ethos.
66
Three of the multi-denominational schools have an all Irish medium of instruction and two of them have an English medium of instruction.
97
Using the GIS system, analysis has been done to identify the number of small schools that have
another school in the same group within a 10km distance. This analysis has shown that in the case of
495 of the small schools there is a school of the same type within a 10km distance of the small
school. A summary of the result of this analysis for the seven groups is contained in Table 6.5. The
groups are listed in the descending order of occurrence.
Table 6.5 Small schools which are within a 10km distance of another school of the same type
Group
Description of small school
Number of
small
schools
No. of small schools with a
school in the same group within
10km
1
Catholic,
English-medium
Outside the Gaeltacht,
2
Church of Ireland
74
28
3
Gaeltacht school
51
46
4
Island
13
4
5
Presbyterian
9
2
6
Catholic,
All-Irish medium
Outside the Gaeltacht
7
2
7
Multi-denominational
68
1
582
491
Total
67
423
5
407
Table 6.6 and Charts 9 and 10 depict the position as follows:
•
Table 6.6 provides an overview of all the small schools nationally (based on 2009/10
enrolment) in relation to their distance by road to the closest school of the same type. It
shows that 84% of all the small schools are within a 10km distance of a similar school. Half of
all the small schools are within a 5km distance of another school of the same type.
•
Chart 11 is a pictorial representation of Table 6.6. It gives the overall distance picture for all
the small schools. Chart 12 is a further detailed pictorial representation of Table 6.6. It breaks
down the overall distance picture showing the distances and the types of schools.
67
The island schools have been separated into their own category for geographical reasons. All thirteen island schools
are Catholic in ethos. Eight of them are in Gaeltacht areas and operate an all-Irish medium of instruction. Five of them
are outside Gaeltacht areas and operate an English medium of instruction.
68
Three of these multi-denominational schools have an all-Irish medium of instruction and two of them have an English
medium of instruction. In regard to the two multi-denominational schools which had a school of the same type within a
10km distance, these were recently established schools in 2009/10 when this data was collected and their enrolment
has since exceeded 50 pupils.
98
Table 6.6 Overview of distance (km) of small schools to next nearest school of the same type (based on 2009/10 enrolment)
Breakdown of distances in 1km bands
Group
Description of Group
1
English medium, Catholic
ethos, non Gaeltacht
2
Church of Ireland
3
Gaeltacht
4
Island
5
Presbyterian
6
All-Irish medium, Catholic
ethos, non Gaeltacht
7
Multi-denominational
< 1km
>1km
and
<2km
Summary overview
>2km
and
<3km
>3km
and
<4km
>4km
and
<5km
>5km
and
<6km
>6km
and
<7km
>7km
and
<8km
>8km
and
<9km
>9km
and
<10km
<
10km
>
10km
Total
12
3
19
74
138
90
44
17
7
4
408
15
423
0
3
2
2
2
3
5
7
1
3
28
46
74
1
4
8
14
5
4
2
4
4
46
5
51
2
2
4
9
13
2
7
9
1
2
5
7
1
1
4
5
491
91
582
2
1
Total small schools
Cumulative total of small
schools
13
7
27
86
156
98
53
28
12
11
13
20
47
133
289
387
440
468
480
491
Cumulative percentage of
small schools
2%
3%
8%
23%
50%
67%
76%
81%
83%
84%
99
Chart 11 : Overview of distance (km) of the 582 small schools to next nearest school of same type
(based on 2009/10 enrolment figures)
180
160
140
No of schools
120
100
80
156
60
98
91
86
40
53
20
28
27
13
0
< 1km
7
>1km and
<2km
>2km and
<3km
>3km and
<4km
>4km and
<5km
>5km and
<6km
>6km and
<7km
>7km and
<8km
12
11
>8km and
<9km
>9km and
<10km
> 10km
Km distance
100
Chart 12: Overview of the small schools according to their distance to the nearest school in their
group (2009/10)
180
160
140
7 Multi-denominational
No of schools
120
6 All-Irish medium, Catholic ethos, non
Gaeltacht
100
5 Presbyterian
80
4 Island
60
3 Gaeltacht
40
2 Church of Ireland
20
1 English medium, Catholic ethos, non
Gaeltacht
0
< 1km
>1km
and
<2km
>2km
and
<3km
>3km
and
<4km
>4km
and
<5km
>5km
and
<6km
>6km
and
<7km
>7km
and
<8km
>8km
and
<9km
>9km > 10km
and
<10km
Distance
101
For each of the seven groups it is useful to further analyse the distance from the small school to the
next school in the same group and to relate the distance to the enrolment of the small school.
Distances are analysed from 0km up to 10km in order to get as full a picture as possible. There are
key characteristics for some groups and these are identified. For each of the seven groups, firstly
there is a map of Ireland showing the location of the schools in the group. Then there follows a table
for the group giving the detail on the distance to the next school of the same type. After each table
there are some summary comments about relevant features of the group and some explanatory text.
102
Figure 4: Location of 423 Catholic, non-Gaeltacht, English medium small schools (Group 1)
2009/10
103
Table 6.7
Group 1 small schools (Catholic, English medium, outside the Gaeltacht) according to their pupil size
and distance to the closest school in their group (423 schools)
School size
Distances in 1km bands
Overview of distances
Cumulative
totals
<
1km
>1km
and
<2km
>2km
and
<3km
>3km
and
<4km
>4km
and
<5km
>5km
and
<6km
>6km
and
<7km
>7km
and
<8km
>8km
and
<9km
>9km
and
<10km
5 - 10 pupils
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
4
11- 20 pupils
0
1
1
6
19
7
7
6
3
0
50
4
54
58
21 - 30 pupils
1
0
7
20
37
28
15
2
2
2
114
4
118
176
31 - 40 pupils
7
1
7
31
59
41
16
7
2
1
172
3
175
351
41 - 49 pupils
4
1
4
15
21
14
6
2
0
1
68
4
72
423
Total
12
3
19
74
138
90
44
17
7
4
408
15
423
Cumulative totals
Cumulative
percentages
12
15
34
108
246
336
380
397
404
408
3%
4%
8%
26%
58%
79%
90%
94%
96%
96%
< 10km
> 10km
Total
104
6.4.1
Features distinctive to Group1: Catholic, English medium, Outside the
Gaeltacht (423 schools)
Nationally almost 90% of all primary schools are under Catholic patronage (c.f. Table 2.5).
This 90% figure also includes Irish-speaking Catholic schools. Group 1 schools (Catholic and
English medium of instruction), constitute approximately 83% of all primary schools nationally
and 73% of all the small schools in the country (423 out of 582). Group 1 small schools
represent approximately 16% of the total of the similar primary schools in the country (Catholic
and English medium) (423 schools out of 2,619 schools in 2009/10).
Single gender schools
A feature unique to Group 1 is the existence of single gender schools. This does not apply in
the case of any of the other groups. While most primary schools are co-educational,
approximately 7% of all primary schools are single-gender and all of these are Catholic in
ethos, non-Gaeltacht and English speaking. Table 6.8 shows that there were 360 singlegender primary schools out of a total of 3,165 schools in 2010/11. In recent years,a number of
schools have transformed to co-education and all new schools established are automatically
co-educational.
Table 6.8
Single gender primary schools 2010/11
Pupil enrolment
Boys only schools
Girls only schools
9
1
50 – 99
39
9
100 – 199
76
32
200 – 299
57
40
300 – 500
41
38
9
9
231
129
< 49
>500
Total
Distances between schools
It is notable that 94% of small schools in Group 1 (397 out of the 423 small schools) are within
8km of at least one other school in the same group.
Table 6.9 outlines the number of Group 1 schools that are within an 8km distance of the 423
small schools in Group 1
105
Table 6.9 is illustrated graphically in Chart 13
Table 6.9
Number of Group 1 schools which are within an 8km distance of a Group 1
small school (2009/10)
Number of similar schools within an
8km distance of the small school
% of
small
schools
No of small
schools
Cumulative
Total
Cumulative
percentages
No similar school within 8km
25
6%
423
100%
1 similar school
46
11%
398
94%
2 similar schools
82
19%
352
83%
3 similar schools
92
22%
270
64%
4 similar schools
84
20%
178
42%
5 similar schools
53
12%
94
22%
6 similar schools
15
4%
41
10%
7 similar schools
14
3%
26
6%
8 similar schools
5
1%
12
3%
9 similar schools
0
0%
7
2%
10 similar schools
2
0%
7
2%
14 similar schools
1
0%
5
1%
More than 30 similar schools
4
1%
4
1%
423
100%
106
Chart 13 Overview of the number of Group 1 schools within an 8km distance of the 423 small schools in
Group 1 (2009/10)
100
92
90
82
84
80
No of small schools
70
60
53
50
No of small schools
46
40
30
20
10
0
25
15
14
5
0
2
1
4
No
1 school
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
More
similar
schools schools schools schools schools schools schools schools schools schools than 30
school
schools
within
8km
No of similar schools within an 8km distance of the small school
107
The data shows that many of the Group 1 small schools are close to other Group 1 schools as
follows:
22% of the small schools have five or more Group 1 schools within 8km
42% of the small schools have four or more Group 1 schools within 8km
64% of the small schools have three or more Group 1 schools within 8km
83% of the small schools have two or more Group 1 schools within 8km
92% of the small schools have one or more Group 1 schools within 8km.
The four cases where there are more than 30 schools within an 8km radius are in the urban
areas of Dublin, Cork and Limerick.
Less than 2km from another Group 1 school
A feature of schools in this distance band is a number of boys-only small schools which are
adjacent to a girl’s school or a co-educational school.
Up to 4km from another Group 1 school
A feature of schools in this distance band is the number of small schools which are relatively
adjacent to larger schools in population settlements.
Information about the size of the nearest school
In the 397 cases where there was another Group 1 school within an 8km distance of the small
school, the size of the closest school was analysed. It showed that in 32% of cases, the
nearest school is itself a small school of under 50 pupils. In 38% of cases, the enrolment of the
nearest school to the small school is 55 pupils or less. In 58% of cases, the enrolment of the
nearest school to the small school is 85 pupils or less. Table 6.10 outlines the pupil enrolment
of the nearest school and the number of cases involved
108
Table 6.10
Pupil enrolment of the nearest Group 1 school to the small school
(provided the nearest school is within 8km of the small school)
Pupil enrolment of nearest
similar school
Number of small
schools
Cumulative
No of small
schools
Cumulative percentage of
small schools
< 20
19
19
20 – 29
37
56
30 – 39
51
107
40 – 49
22
129
32%
50 – 55
18
147
37%
56 – 59
10
157
60 – 69
36
193
70 – 79
17
210
80 - 85
23
233
86 – 89
14
247
90 – 99
35
282
100 – 119
27
309
120 – 149
30
339
150 – 179
18
357
180 – 199
9
366
200 – 299
22
388
300 – 399
5
393
400 +
5
398
59%
100%
109
Figure 5: Location of 74 Church of Ireland small schools (Group 2) (2009/10)
110
Table 6.11
Group 2 small schools (Church of Ireland) according to their pupil size and distance to the
closest school in their group (74 schools)
School size
Overview of
distances
Distances in 1km bands
Cumulative
totals
<
10km
>
10km
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
9
5
14
15
1
0
1
3
21
24
39
3
2
1
2
13
11
24
63
0
1
0
0
3
8
11
74
28
46
74
<
1km
>1km
and
<2km
>2km
and
<3km
>3km
and
<4km
>4km
and
<5km
>5km
and
<6km
>6km
and
<7km
>7km
and
<8km
>8km
and
<9km
>9km
and
<10km
5 - 10 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 20 pupils
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
3
21 - 30 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
31 - 40 pupils
0
1
1
2
0
1
41 - 50 pupils
0
1
0
0
0
1
Total
0
3
2
2
2
3
5
7
1
3
Cumulative totals
Cumulative
percentages
0
3
5
7
9
12
17
24
25
28
0%
4%
7%
9%
12%
16%
23%
32%
34%
38%
Total
111
6.4.2
Features distinctive to Group 2: Church of Ireland small schools (74
schools)
Nationally, schools under the patronage of the Church of Ireland account for 5% of all schools
in the country (c.f. Table 2.5). In terms of the small schools, this group accounts for almost
13% of all the small schools (74 out of 586 schools).
Church of Ireland (COI) schools tend generally to be relatively small. Table 6.11 gives an
indication of this:
Table 6.12 Group 2: Enrolment size of primary schools (2009/10)
Pupil size of school
No. of schools
69
Cumulative number of schools
< 50
74
74
50 – 99
56
130
100 – 149
19
149
150 – 199
10
159
200 – 299
19
178
300 – 399
0
178
400 – 499
1
179
> 500
0
179
Total
179
179
All the Church of Ireland schools are co-educational.
Distance between schools
Firstly, it is notable that Counties Donegal and Cork have higher concentrations of Church of
Ireland small schools than other counties have. See Table 3.5 which illustrates this. It is also
evident from the map at Figure 4.
Secondly, out of the 74 schools, 50 schools are more than 8km away from their nearest
Church of Ireland school. Table 6.13 outlines the number of Group 2 schools that are within
an 8km distance of the 74 small schools in Group 2.
69
The 2009/10 lists show 181 primary schools under the patronage of the Church of Ireland.
However, two schools have closed in the interim. Therefore, there are 179 schools under the
patronage of the Church of Ireland schools in 2012/13.
112
Table 6.13
Number of Group 2 schools which are within an 8km distance of
a Group 2 small school (2009/10)
Number of similar
schools within an
8km distance of the
small school
No of small
schools
% of small
schools
Cumulative
total
Cumulative
percentage
No similar school within
8km
50
68%
74
100%
1 similar school
16
22%
24
32%
2 similar schools
3
4%
8
11%
3 similar schools
1
1%
5
7%
4 similar schools
0
0%
4
5%
5 similar schools
0
0%
4
5%
6 similar schools
0
0%
4
5%
7 similar schools
1
1%
4
5%
8 similar schools
0
0%
3
4%
9 similar schools
0
0%
3
4%
10 similar schools
1
1%
3
4%
11 similar schools
0
0%
2
3%
12 similar schools
1
1%
2
3%
16 similar schools
1
74
1%
100%
1
1%
Table 6.13 is illustrated graphically in Chart 14
113
Chart 14:
Overview of the number of Group 2 schools within an 8km distance of the 74 small
schools in Group 2
60
50
50
No of small schools
40
30
No of small schools
20
16
10
16
sc
ho
ol
s
12
1
sc
ho
ol
s
1
0
sc
ho
ol
s
11
sc
ho
ol
s
10
9
1
0
sc
ho
ol
s
0
sc
ho
ol
s
sc
ho
ol
s
8
6
5
sc
ho
ol
s
4
sc
ho
ol
s
3
sc
ho
ol
s
2
sc
ho
ol
1
8k
m
ith
in
1
0
N
o
si
m
ila
rs
ch
oo
lw
0
7
0
sc
ho
ol
s
1
0
sc
ho
ol
s
3
No of Group 2 schools w ithin an 8km distance of the small school
114
The data shows that in Group 2 the majority of small schools are more than 8km away
from another Group 2 school as follows: 5% of the small schools have five or more Group 2 schools within 8km
5% of the small schools have four or more Group 2 schools within 8km
7% of the small schools have three or more Group 2 schools within 8km
11% of the small schools have two or more Group 2 schools within 8km
32% of the small schools have one or more Group 2 schools within 8km.
68% of the small schools in Group 2 do not have another Group 2 school within 8km.
The four cases where there are more than 4 schools within an 8km radius are in Dublin
city.
Information about the nearest school in the group
The size of the nearest school to the small school was analysed. It has shown that in
66% of all cases (18 cases), the nearest school is itself a small school of under 50
pupils. In 79% of cases, the enrolment of the nearest school is 85 pupils or less. Table
6.14 displays the pupil enrolment of the nearest school and the number of cases
involved
115
Table 6.14
Pupil enrolment of the nearest Group 2 school to the small school
(provided the nearest school is within 8km of the small school)
Pupil enrolment of
nearest similar
school
< 20
No of small
schools
Cumulative percentage of
small schools
Cumulative
7
7
20 – 29
4
11
30 – 39
1
12
40 – 49
4
16
66%
50 - 55
0
16
66%
56 – 59
0
16
60 – 69
2
18
70 – 79
0
18
80 - 85
1
19
86 - 89
0
19
90 – 99
0
19
100 – 119
0
19
120 – 149
3
22
150 – 179
0
22
180 – 199
1
23
200 – 299
1
24
> 300
0
24
Total
24
24
79%
100%
Question of clusters
Church of Ireland small schools do not generally appear in clusters. This is evident
from the map in Figure 3. The exception is that there are small clusters of schools in
Co Donegal and the city areas of Cork or Dublin. There are 24 Church of Ireland
schools which are within 8km of another Church of Ireland school and following is the
breakdown of the numbers of COI schools within 8km of them:
•
In 16 cases there is just one COI school within 8km.
•
In 4 cases of COI small schools in Dublin City three of them have ten or
more COI schools within an 8km distance of them and the fourth school
has six COI schools within an 8km distance
•
In 2 cases (both in Donegal) there are two COI schools within 8km.
•
In 2 cases (one in Donegal and one in Cork City) there are three COI
schools within 8km.
Unlike Group 1, there would be a limited number of options for Group 2 schools to reorganise with a similar neighbouring school in a relatively close distance.
116
Figure 6: Location of 51 Gaeltacht small schools (Group 3) (2009/10)
117
Table 6.15
Group 3 Gaeltacht small schools according to their pupil size and distance to the closest
similar school (51 schools)
School size
Distances in 1km bands
Overview of distances
<
10km
>
10km
Cumulative
totals
<
1km
>1km
and
<2km
>2km
and
<3km
>3km
and
<4km
>4km
and
<5km
>5km
and
<6km
>6km
and
<7km
>7km
and
<8km
>8km
and
<9km
>9km
and
<10km
5- 10 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11- 20 pupils
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
1
8
1
9
9
21 - 30 pupils
1
0
2
2
8
2
1
0
3
0
19
3
22
31
31 - 40 pupils
0
0
1
2
3
1
2
0
1
3
13
0
13
44
41 - 49 pupils
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
6
1
7
51
Total
2
0
3
7
15
5
4
2
4
4
46
5
51
Cumulative totals
2
2
5
12
27
32
36
38
42
46
4%
4%
10%
24%
53%
63%
71%
75%
82%
90%
Cumulative
percentages
Total
118
6.4.3
Features distinctive to Group 3: Gaeltacht small schools (51)
The small Gaeltacht schools are located in five Gaeltacht counties, namely:
• Cork
• Donegal
• Kerry
• Galway
• Mayo
When schools complete their annual statistical return to the Department, they indicate their
medium of instruction. In the case of the Gaeltacht schools, most of them teach solely
through Irish. But there are a small number of Gaeltacht schools whose medium of
instruction is mixed Irish/English and a smaller number again whose medium of instruction is
English. Based on the 2009/10 statistical returns, Table 6.14 outlines the breakdown between
the language classification and school size of Gaeltacht schools as reported by the schools:
Table 6.16 Pupils in Gaeltacht schools according to school language status (2009/10
< 50
pupils
50 –
99
pupils
100 –
199
pupils
200 –
299
pupils
300 –
399
pupils
> 400
pupils
38
32
22
2
1
0
22
11
7
2
1
1
0
6
2
3
1
0
0
0
123
51
42
25
3
2
0
Language
status
No of
schools
All-Irish
95
Part- Irish
English
medium
Total
70
Source: Dept of Education & Skills, Statistics Section
In compiling Table 6.15 (Group 3 Distance Table), every attempt was made to ensure
that schools were accurately matched in terms of their medium of instruction. Clear
threats to the sustainability of Irish as a community language in the Gaeltacht have
been well documented. In view of the importance of schools to the maintenance of the
language, any re-organisation proposals for Gaeltacht schools would have to be
constructed so as not to add to these threats. Hence, an effort was made to match
schools in terms of their medium of instruction. In this regard, the following should be
noted:
All-Irish category: Thirty-eight Gaeltacht schools classified themselves as all-Irish
schools. In identifying their closest school for the purpose of Table 6.15 they were
matched only with other all-Irish Gaeltacht schools.
70
There were 124 primary schools in the Gaeltacht in 2009/10 but one school since
amalgamated on 31/8/12 and therefore the effective total is 123 schools
119
Part-Irish category: Eleven Gaeltacht small schools classified themselves as part-Irish
schools. Seven of them were within an 8km distance of another part-Irish Gaeltacht
school.
Two schools were more than 10km away from another school of any sort.
The remaining two part-Irish schools are both in practice English speaking. In both
cases, the distance to their nearest English speaking school was identified. One
school is not within a 10km distance of an English speaking school. In the other case,
the school is within 5km of an English speaking school which happens to be outside the
Gaeltacht and it has been matched with that school for the purpose of Table 6.15.
English medium category: Two Gaeltacht small schools classified themselves as
English-speaking. In the case of the first school, its closest school is an Englishspeaking, non-Gaeltacht school. For the purpose of Table 6.15 it has been matched in
terms of distance with that school. In the case of the second small school, its closest
school is an all-Irish Gaeltacht school. As the two schools have different mediums of
instruction it would not be appropriate to match them for the purpose of this exercise.
The closest English-speaking school is between 8 and 9km away and it is outside the
Gaeltacht. The school has been matched with it for the purpose of Table 6.15.
Distance between schools
Out of the 51 schools, 46 schools are within 8km of a similar Gaeltacht school. Table
6.17 outlines the number of Group 3 schools that are within an 8km distance of the 51
small schools in Group 3
Table 6.17
Number of Group 3 (Gaeltacht) schools which are within
an 8km distance of a small school (2009/10)
Number of similar schools
within an 8km distance of the
small school
No of small
schools in
the Group
% of small schools in
the Group
No similar school within 8km
13
25%
1 similar school
14
27%
2 similar schools
14
29%
3 similar schools
8
15%
4 similar schools
2
4%
51
100%
Total
The data shows that three quarters of the Gaeltacht small schools are within 8km of
another similar Gaeltacht school.
48% of the small schools have two or more similar schools within 8km
120
Chart 15: Overview of the number of Group 3 schools within an 8km distance of the 51 small
schools in Group 3 (Gaeltacht schools)
16
14
14
14
13
No of small schools
12
10
8
8
No of small schools in the Group
6
4
2
2
0
No similar school
within 8km
1 school
2 schools
3 schools
4 schools
No of similar Gaeltacht schools within an 8km distance of the small school
Information about the nearest school in the group
The size of the nearest school to the small school was analysed. It has shown that in
55% of all cases (21 cases), the nearest school is itself a small school of under 50
pupils. In 71% of cases, the enrolment of the nearest school is 55 pupils or less. In
84% of cases the enrolment of the nearest school is 85 pupils or less. Table 6.18
displays the pupil enrolment of the nearest school and the number of cases involved
121
Table 6.18
Group 3: Pupil enrolment of nearest similar school to the small school
(provided the nearest school is within 8km of the small school)
Pupil enrolment of
nearest similar school
No of small
schools
Cumulative
< 20
2
2
20 – 29
5
7
30 – 39
6
13
40 – 49
8
21
57%
50 - 55
6
27
73%
56 – 59
0
27
60 – 69
4
31
70 – 79
0
31
80 - 85
0
31
86 - 89
0
31
90 – 99
0
31
100 – 119
3
34
120 – 149
2
36
150 – 179
1
37
180 – 199
0
37
200 – 299
0
37
> 300
0
37
Total
37
Cumulative percentage of
small schools
84%
37
100%
122
Figure 7: Location of 13 island small schools Group 4 (2009/10)
123
Table 6.19
Group 4 small schools (islands) according to their pupil size and distance to the closest school
in their group (13 schools)
School size
Distances in 1km bands
Overview of distances
Cumulative
totals
>
10km
>1km
and
<2km
>2km
and
<3km
>3km
and
<4km
>4km
and
<5km
>5km
and
<6km
>6km
and
<7km
>7km
and
<8km
>8km
and
<9km
>9km
and
<10km
< 10km
5 - 10 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
11- 20 pupils
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
10
21 - 30 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
11
31 - 40 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
41 - 49 pupils
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
13
Total
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
9
13
Cumulative totals
0
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
13
Total
124
6.4.4
Features distinctive to Group 4: Island small schools (13)
There are eleven off-shore islands with primary schools. All of the primary schools on
the off-shore islands are small schools, in that all of them had less than 50 pupils in
2009/10. Two of the islands have two schools each and the remaining nine islands
have one school each. In the case of an island with one primary school, clearly that is
the only available choice and there is no scope to re-organise with another school on
the island.
Some of the island schools are Gaeltacht and Irish-speaking. The Island small school
group has been kept separate for the purpose of analysis from the other groups
because they need to be considered on a stand-alone basis.
In the case of the two islands which have two schools, in both instances the schools
are within 10km of each other on the island and they have the same medium of
instruction. In one island the schools are between 2km and 3km apart and in the other
island the schools are between 3km and 4km apart.
125
Figure 8: Location of 9 Presbyterian small schools Group 5 (2009/10)
126
Table 6.20
Group 5 small schools (Presbyterian) according to their pupil size and distance to the
closest school in their group (9 schools)
School size
Distances in 1km bands
Overview of distances
Cumulative
totals
>
10km
>1km
and
<2km
>2km
and
<3km
>3km
and
<4km
>4km
and
<5km
>5km
and
<6km
>6km
and
<7km
>7km
and
<8km
>8km
and
<9km
>9km
and
<10km
< 10km
5 - 10 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11- 20 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
21 - 30 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
6
31 - 40 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
41 - 49 pupils
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
9
Total
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
9
Total
127
6.4.5
Features distinctive to Group 5: Presbyterian small schools (9)
There are fourteen Presbyterian primary schools in the country and nine of them are
small schools. The nine small schools are located in two counties (Monaghan (3
schools) and Donegal (6 schools).
In the case of seven of the Presbyterian small schools they are more than 8km away
from another Presbyterian school. In the case of the remaining two Presbyterian small
schools, they are each other’s closest school and are less than 5km from each other.
128
Figure 9: Location of 7 all-Irish Catholic small schools outside the Gaeltacht (Group 6)
(2009/10)
129
Table 6.21
Group 6 small schools (all-Irish, non Gaeltacht, Catholic) according to their pupil size and
distance to the closest school in their group (7 schools)
School size
Overview of
distances
Distances in 1km bands
<
1km
>1km
and
<2km
>2km
and
<3km
>3km
and
<4km
>4km
and
<5km
>5km
and
<6km
>6km
and
<7km
>7km
and
<8km
>8km
and
<9km
>9km
and
<10km
5 - 10 pupils
< 10km
>
10km
Cum
totals
Total
0
0
0
0
11- 20 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
21 - 30 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
31 - 40 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
41 - 49 pupils
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
3
7
2
5
7
Total
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Cumulative total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
130
6.4.6
Features distinctive to Group 6: All-Irish small schools, Catholic,
outside the Gaeltacht (7)
There are seven small schools in Group 6.
In a number of cases they were originally English speaking schools and transformed to
Irish. Two of the schools are within 8km of another all-Irish, Catholic, non-Gaeltacht
school.
131
Figure 10: Location of multi-denominational small schools (Group 7) (2009/10)
132
Table 6.22
Group 7 small schools (multi-denominational) according to their pupil size and distance to the
closest school in their group (5 schools)
School size
Distances in 1km bands
Overview of distances
Cumulative
totals
>1km
and
<2km
>2km
and
<3km
>3km
and
<4km
>4km
and
<5km
>5km
and
<6km
>6km
and
<7km
>7km
and
<8km
>8km
and
<9km
>9km
and
<10km
< 10km
5 - 10 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11- 20 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21 - 30 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
31 - 40 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
41 - 49 pupils
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
3
5
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
4
5
Cumulative total
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
>
10km
Total
133
6.4.7
Features distinctive to Group 7: Multi-denominational small schools
(5)
In 2009/10 there were five multi-denominational schools of under 50 pupils. Four of
these schools are also gaelscoileanna and none of these gaelscoileanna is within 8km
of a similar school. Three of the gaelscoileanna were newly established in 2009/10 and
their enrolment in 2011/12 ranges between 73 pupils and 96 pupils. The fourth multidenominational gaelscoil was originally a Catholic school and transformed its ethos and
language of instruction to multi-denominational/Irish in 2005/6. Its enrolment in
2011/12 was 30 pupils but there is no similar school within 8km.
The final multi-denominational “small school” is an English speaking multidenominational school. It is located in an area of population growth and is within 8km of
an existing multi-denominational school.
However, the 2011/12 of the multidenominational “small school” had grown to 152 pupils.
6.5
School transport scheme for primary pupils
The purpose of the Primary School Transport Scheme is, having regard to available
resources, to support the transport to and from school of children who reside 3.2
kilometres or more from their nearest school.
The scheme has historically allowed for choice of primary school on religious grounds
and this allowed transport for Catholic or Protestant children to attend the nearest
schools under their appropriate denominational management. It also provided for
transport to the nearest Irish language schools – this particularly applied in the
Gaeltacht initially and has now been extended given the number of Gaelscoileanna at
primary level. Furthermore, the scheme was extended to include multi-denominational
schools when these were established.
Historically, where a primary school has been closed and amalgamated with another,
children for whom the closed school would have been their nearest were eligible for
transport, without reference to the distance rules, to the school of amalgamation, even
though this school may not have been their nearest school. This was called the closed
school rule (CSR). This rule has ceased as a result of the adoption of the
recommendations in the Value for Money Review of the School Transport Scheme
(published March 2011). Pupils who commenced their primary school education from
the 2012/13 school year have their eligibility determined by the distance they reside
from their nearest national school, as determined by the Department, having regard to
language and ethos. Existing eligible pupils from a closed school area will retain their
transport eligibility for the duration of their education at their current school of
amalgamation. In December 2011, an annual charge of €100 per pupil for primary
school transport was introduced, subject to a maximum family charge of €220.
134
In terms of the updated Primary School Transport Scheme, children are eligible for
transport where they reside not less than 3.2 km from and are attending their nearest
national school as determined by the Department/Bus Éireann, having regard to ethos
and language. Bus Éireann holds a record of the home address of each child who
avails of school transport and decide the child’s eligibility by reference to the distance
between their home and their nearest school. This information is collected and held by
Bus Éireann in order to administer the school transport scheme on behalf of the
Department of Education and Skills. For the purposes of school transport eligibility, no
maximum distance is applicable to children who are attending their nearest school in
terms of religious or linguistic ethos.
The provision of a school transport service and the continuation of that service depend
on a minimum number of eligible pupils being available for transport. Currently, a
minimum number of 10 eligible children residing in a distinct locality, as determined by
Bus Éireann is required in order that School Transport services may be established or
retained, provided this can be done within reasonable cost limits.
In a case where Bus Éireann determines that a child is eligible for school transport but
there is not the required minimum number of eligible children in order to run a service
within reasonable cost limits, a grant is paid directly to the child’s family to assist
towards the cost of private transport arrangements. This grant, known as a Remote
Area Grant (RAG) is administered directly by the Department of Education and Skills.
The grant is payable at a fixed daily rate, to each eligible family, regardless of the
number of children from the same family, travelling to a particular school. In 2011/12
approximately 1,600 families received the Remote Area Grant. The majority of the
recipients of the Remote Area Grant do not live in remote areas per se but qualify for
the grant to assist them in travelling to their school of choice, namely a gaelscoil, a
multi-denominational school or a minority denominational school.
Pupils who are not eligible for school transport, but who live on a transport route, may
apply for school transport on a concessionary basis. Such transport is subject to a
number of conditions including the availability of spare seats after all eligible children
have been catered for. The availability of concessionary transport may vary from year
to year and cannot be guaranteed for the duration of a child’s primary school education
cycle.
Some 36,000 eligible primary children availed of school transport in the 2011/12 school
year. This represents c. 7% of the primary school-going population.
In the context of future amalgamations, eligibility for school transport will be on the
basis of attendance at the nearest school having regard for ethos and language and
the distance criteria applying at that time.
As indicated at the outset, the Department does not know the travel distance for each
of some half million primary school pupils. However, it can establish the addresses and
thus the travel distance for any pupil who is availing of school transport or who is in
receipt of a remote area grant. In the case of the pupils availing of school transport,
their addresses and travel distances are available to the Department from Bus Éireann
who administers the scheme on behalf of the Department. The Department holds the
details of the number of pupils in receipt of a remote area grant and their travel
distance to school. In examining a small school with a view to identifying reorganisation options, the number of pupils availing of school transport/remote area
135
grants and the distance they have to travel to school are relevant and should be
identified.
6.6
Findings
The findings of international research on optimal school size cannot be assumed to be
directly applicable in an Irish context due to the differences in scale and organisation of
the education system in other countries. It was decided to focus on findings produced
in a domestic context by the Department’s inspectorate and by the Educational
Research Centre.
The finding of the Department’s inspectorate based on recent inspection data is that
there was no significant relationship between school size and the quality of teaching,
learning and assessment in schools.
The Educational Research Centre conducted on an analysis of pupil achievement in
English reading and Mathematics Achievement in rural schools in the Schools Support
Programme. They found no evidence that small school size mitigated the effect of
poverty on educational outcomes.
The 582 small schools are composed of seven key groupings, as identified in Chapter
3. In terms of pupil travel distances, it is considered reasonable to measure the
distance between the small schools in each group and their nearest school in the same
group. The overall picture is summarised in Table 6.7.
Of the seven key groupings, three of them constitute 92% of all the small schools.
They are Group 1 (Catholic, English-speaking, and non-Gaeltacht schools), Group 2
(Church of Ireland schools) and Group 3 (Gaeltacht schools which are not in the
islands).
Group 1 schools are the most prevalent form of school in the State and constitute about
83% of all primary schools and 73% of all small primary schools. Small schools
constitute about 16% of all Group 1 schools. Group 1 small schools are located
throughout the country, but there are higher concentrations of them generally towards
the western half of the country. 92% of Group 1 small schools are within an 8km
distance of another Group 1 school and 83% of all Group 1 small schools have two (or
more) Group 1 schools within an 8km distance of them. 58% of Group 1 small schools
are within a 5km distance of another Group 1 school. The size of the nearest school to
the small Group school 1 was analysed in the cases where the nearest school was
within 8km. It was found that in the case of 38% of the small schools, the nearest
similar school has an enrolment of less than 56 pupils. Within Group 1 there are a
number of single gender small schools. There are also a number of small schools in
urban areas. The concentrations of Group 1 schools suggest re-organisation should be
possible.
136
Group 2 schools constitute about 7% of all primary schools and 13% of all small
primary schools. Small schools constitute about 42% of all schools in Group 2 based
on 2009/10 enrolment. Group 2 small schools are located throughout the country but
there are higher concentrations in Counties Dublin, Wicklow, Cork, Donegal, Monaghan
and Cavan. 32% of Group 2 small schools (24 schools) are within an 8km distance of
one other Group 2 school. In sixteen of these cases, the school within an 8km distance
is itself a small school. 12% of Group 2 schools (9 schools) are within a 5km distance
of another Group 2 school. In the case of these 9 schools, five are in Dublin city or the
perimeter of the city and four are in Donegal. 68% of all Group 2 schools are more than
8km away from another Group 2 school. The dispersal of Group 2 schools generally
suggests limited possibilities for re-organisation.
Group 3 schools constitute less than 1% of all primary schools and 8% of all small
primary schools. Small schools constitute 43% of all schools in Group 3 based on
2009/10 enrolment. Group 3 small schools are located in the counties of Donegal,
Mayo, Galway, Cork and Kerry. Group 3 schools are further classified in terms of the
language of instruction as reported by the schools, namely all-Irish, part-Irish or no
Irish. When account is taken of this and the closest appropriate school to the small
school is identified, three quarters of Gaeltacht schools are within an 8km distance of a
similar school and over half of them are within a 5km distance of another similar school.
The size of the nearest school to the small Group 3 schools was analysed in the cases
where the nearest school was within 8km. It was found that in the case of 73% of the
small schools , the nearest similar school has an enrolment of under 56 pupils The
concentrations of Group 3 schools suggest re-organisation should be possible in a
number of cases while ensuring no diminution in the standard of the Irish language in
the schools involved.
Group 4 (island schools), comprise a total of 13 primary schools and they are all small
schools based on 2009/10 enrolment. They are located on nine off-shore islands off
the coast of Donegal, Galway, Mayo, Cork and Kerry. Two of the islands have two
schools. In both islands, the two schools are within 4km of each other and have the
same medium of instruction. This would suggest that re-organisation could be a
possibility in both cases.
Group 5 (Presbyterian schools) comprise a total of 14 primary schools and nine of
these are small schools based on 2009/10 enrolment. The nine small schools are
located in two counties, namely Monaghan and Donegal. Two of them are within 5km
of each other which would suggest that re-organisation could be a possibility in those
cases.
Group 6 (All Irish, non Gaeltacht, Catholic schools) comprise a total of 125 primary
schools and seven of these are small schools based on 2009/10 enrolment. Two of
them are within an 8km distance of a similar school.
Group 7 (multi-denominational schools) comprise a total of 69 primary schools and five
of these are small schools based on 2009/10 enrolment. Four of these schools are
more than 8km away from a similar school. In the case of the one school that is within
8km of a similar school, it is a developing school located in an area of population
growth and its 2011/12 enrolment had grown to in excess of 150 pupils since 2009/10.
There are little re-organisation possibilities within the multi-denominational sector.
137
The school transport scheme supports the transport of primary school pupils who
reside more than 3.2km from their nearest school. The scheme allows for choice on
grounds of ethos and language of instruction. There have been recent changes to the
scheme which mean that a strict distance criterion is now applied. The scheme is
administered by Bus Éireann on behalf of the Department. In a case where Bus
Éireann determines that a child is eligible for school transport but there is not the
required minimum number of eligible children in order to run a service within
reasonable cost limits, a grant is paid directly to the child’s family to assist towards the
cost of private transport arrangements. Approximately 1,600 families receive such a
grant. About 36,000 eligible primary school pupils availed of school transport in
2011/12 and this represents about 7% of the primary school going population.
138
Chapter 7
Small schools provision: Objectives – Cost and Efficiency of
Achievement
7.1
Introduction
This chapter sets out to define the relevant outputs associated with primary school
provision, with a particular focus on small primary schools, to identify the level of
these outputs, and to identify the costs (current and capital) and staffing resources
associated with school size and thus examine the efficiency of resource use. This
fulfils the second and fourth term of reference.
An assessment of efficiency involves an examination of the relationship between
inputs and outputs. The inputs and outputs, and the efficiency indicators used to
measure the relationship between them, of the provision and continued operation of
small primary schools were identified in chapter four as part of the application of the
Programme Logic Model (PLM). Chapter 4 identifies the performance indicators used
to assess efficiency as follows:
•
Unit cost per-pupil in small primary schools
•
Future enrolment projections for primary school population
•
Average pupils per class-teacher in small primary schools
•
Cost of professional and administrative staff-time within the DES that is
employed on duties related to small primary schools
The question of future enrolment projections is addressed in 2.8 where it is
established that strong enrolment growth is expected up to 2018 and possibly up to
2020. There are pockets of growth distributed throughout the country (Figure 2) but
the main area of growth is in the mid-east area which is a reflection of population
growth in this area in recent years (Figure 3). The average pupils per class teacher
in small primary schools is addressed in 2.4 where it is shown that schools of under
50 pupils have an average of under 15 pupils per class teacher, whereas the overall
national average pupils per-class teacher is over 24 pupils. This chapter identifies
the unit cost per-pupil in small primary schools and how it compares with unit cost in
larger schools. This could be summarised in the following key question:
7.2
Key Question 3: What is the cost premium of small school
provision?
In order to calculate the unit cost in small primary schools it is necessary to first
establish the cost of operating such schools and then to identify the number of pupils
enrolled in them.
139
7.3 Identification of inputs
The main form of aid from the State to primary schools comprises grants to schools
and salary payments to teachers and other staff. These were the ‘inputs’ identified in
Chapter 4.
Total gross DES expenditure (current and capital) on first level education in 2011 was
approximately €3.3 billion. This constitutes approximately 42% of total expenditure
by the DES (€8.88bn) in 2011. Table 2.6 breaks the first level expenditure down into
its constituent elements and expresses them as a percentage of the total spend on
first level education in 2011 (excluding the receipts as they would distort the figures).
As the focus of this study is on DES expenditure on small primary schools, other
sources of funding for schools such as parental contributions, local fundraising,
and/or any contributions/provision of school sites from school patrons have also been
excluded from examination in this review.
Expenditure on first level education by the DES can be broken down into current and
capital expenditure.
7.4 Current expenditure
Based on the data in Table 2.6, current expenditure comprises over 91% of all
expenditure on first level education.
Current expenditure comprises pay,
superannuation, school running costs, school transport and a range of other grants
and services.
7.4.1 Pay costs
Pay costs comprise pay costs of teaching and non-teaching staff in schools as well as
overhead pay costs for Department staff.
Teacher salaries
Teachers’ pay and superannuation is the single largest element of expenditure on
primary education comprising 78% of all current expenditure on primary schools and
71% of total expenditure (current and capital) in 2011. When the cost of the salaries of
non teaching staff (SNAs, caretakers etc) is added to teacher salaries, the combined
salary costs represent 87% of current expenditure and almost 80% of total primary
level expenditure. While teacher salaries are the single most important component of
the cost of first-level education, the number of teachers (and other staff) employed is
determined by the number of pupils in the system and the distribution of those pupils in
the 3,305 primary schools (3,165 ordinary primary schools and 140 special schools). In
an overall sense, it is the number of enrolments that is the key cost driver in primary
education. As outlined in Chapter 2, 2011 overall enrolment was 516,460 pupils (Table
2.1) and enrolments are expected to increase by some 32,500 pupils in the period 2012
– 2014. As of July 2012, the most likely scenario projects an enrolment level of over
600,000 pupils by 2020.
Costs included in the Teacher salary expenditure
There is a wide range of costs and allowances paid from the teacher salary subhead.
Chief among these are:
• Teacher pay and qualification allowances for mainstream class teachers in
ordinary primary schools and in special schools. Mainstream class teachers
account for approximately two thirds of all primary teachers.
140
•
•
•
Allowances for posts of responsibility for mainstream class teachers including
Principal, Deputy Principal, Assistant Principal and Special Duties posts in
ordinary primary schools and in special schools
Teacher pay and qualification allowances for non-mainstream class teachers in
ordinary primary schools and in special schools. Non-mainstream class
teachers account for approximately one third of all primary teachers.
Other teacher allowances
Given the complex range of costs, the number of personnel involved and the number
and range of schools involved, the system does not identify every single cost against
each individual school. As already noted, teacher salary expenditure also includes
teacher salary expenditure on the 140 special schools and they are not the focus of
the VFM review. The VFM review needs to identify the teacher costs that arise
generally in ordinary primary schools, and specifically in relation to the small schools.
In fact, examining past costs is not particularly informative because they are
predicated on assumptions that are no longer applicable. It is more relevant to focus
on the likely costs in 2014 and identify whether there will be a per pupil cost
differential between small primary schools and larger schools.
Measures adopted in the period 2009 – 2012 to achieve efficiencies on teacher salary
expenditure in all schools
Measures have been adopted, as follows:
• Budget 2012 introduced a revised schedule of enrolment of pupils governing
the appointment and retention of mainstream class teachers, to be phased in
over 2012 – 2014.
• With effect from 27 March 2009 the Government introduced a recruitment and
promotion moratorium across the civil and public sector. Its effect in relation to
teachers was to prohibit the filling of promotion posts (posts of responsibility)
other than those of Principal and Deputy Principal
• Budget 2012 announced that public service bodies will have to achieve a
reduction of 5% in the cost of allowances and premium payments in 2012. In
order to achieve this, no new allowances were paid to new beneficiaries with
st
effect from 1 February 2012, with the exception of Principal and Deputy
Principal allowances
Following is some commentary on each of these measures, their implementation and
effect:
1.
Budget 2012 adjustment to the allocation of mainstream classroom teachers for
1, 2, 3 and 4-teacher primary schools
This adjustment affects schools whose enrolment ranges up to 85 pupils. All the
schools which are subject of this review (namely those of less than 50 pupils) are
affected by the budgetary change.
Rationale for the budget measure
The rationale for the budgetary measure was to achieve savings by distributing
teaching resources more equitably across all schools, irrespective of their size. The
enrolment data available showed that the smaller schools benefited
disproportionately with more favourable staffing schedules. This is evident from
Tablee 7.1 below which outlines average class size and Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR)
by school size category for 2011/12. Class size refers to the number of pupils in a
teacher’s classroom, while PTR refers to the ratio of pupils to the total number of fulltime teachers, that is, class teachers and all support teachers, in a school.
Accordingly, class size describes the setting in which a pupil is taught, while PTR
provides an indication of the level of professional support available to pupils.
141
TABLE 7.1 — National school pupils and teachers (mainstream classes), classified by pupil size of school (2011/12)
Pupil size of School
Less than 50
50-99
100-199
200-299
300-499
500 & over
Total
Number of Schools
599
824
795
506
338
97
3,159
Number of Teaching
Teachers
1,221
2,880
4,620
4,703
5,074
2,218
20,716
Total Teachers
1,425
3,943.5
6,723
7,042.5
7,333
3,176
29,643
Number of Pupils
18,230
61,854
113,196
121,519
131,465
59,954
506,218
12.8
15.7
16.8
17.3
17.9
18.9
17.1
Average Class Size
14.9
21.5
24.5
25.8
25.9
27.0
24.4
Average Teachers per
School
2.4
4.8
8.5
13.9
21.7
32.7
9.4
Pupil-Teacher Ratio
Note 1: This table excludes pupils with special needs in mainstream national schools (2,822 pupils) and their teachers as well as pupils in special schools (7,420
pupils) and their teachers.
Note 2: The withdrawal of the Resource Teachers for Travellers in 2011 resulted in a change in the way pupils who are members of the Travelling community are
counted in the annual Census of Primary Schools. This has led to a once-off discontinuity in the count of Pupils in Mainstream Classes in Mainstream Schools, and
that of Pupils with Special Needs in Mainstream Schools.
Source: Dept of Education & Skills Statistics Section, 2011 Annual Statistical report
142
Table 7.1 shows that class size was smallest and pupil teacher ratio lowest in smaller
schools. Conversely, class sizes were largest and pupil teacher ratio highest in
larger-sized schools. Schools with less than 50 pupils had an average class size of
14.9 and a PTR of 12.8 compared to the overall average class size of 24.4 and PTR
of 17.1. Schools with enrolment in excess of 500 pupils have an average class size of
27.0 and a PTR of 18.9. . In general, as school size decreased so too did class size
and PTR.
The 2012 budget measure was as follows:
• Adjust the staffing schedules in 1, 2, 3 and 4-teacher primary schools, by phased
increases in the minimum number of pupils required for the allocation and
retention of teaching posts. This is estimated to yield savings of about 250 posts
over the 3 year period commencing from September 2012.
• Phase the arrangements over a three-year period to provide schools with an
opportunity to plan towards the changes underway and seek to amalgamate with
other schools should they not wish to continue with a reduced number of
teachers.
Phasing of Implementation
The phasing arrangement is summarised in Table 7.2 below:
Table 7.2
Phased implementation of staffing schedule adjustment for 1-,
71
2- ,3- and 4-teacher primary schools (2012 – 2014)
School size
2-teacher
3-teacher
4-teacher
Pupil enrolment thresholds
Previous
threshold
Sept 2012
Sept 2013
Sept 2014
12
14
17
20
49
51
54
56
81
83
85
86
It can be seen that the biggest adjustment is in the case of the threshold for the
allocation of the second teacher in a 2-teacher school where the threshold will be 20
pupils by 2014. This adjustment is in fact similar to the threshold levels that pertained
some years ago. In 1996/97 a total of 28 pupils were needed for the appointment of
the second teacher in a 2-teacher school. It was progressively reduced down over
the four subsequent years (to 25 pupils in 1997/98, to 18 pupils in 1998/99, to 14
pupils in 1999/00 and to 12 pupils in 2000/01). It settled at 12 pupils from 2000/01
school year until the changes announced in Budget 2012.
71
More favourable thresholds apply to DEIS Band 1 schools and to Gaeltacht schools of 5 –
11 teachers but as they are not pertinent to the VFM review, the details are omitted to make
easier reading. For information, the full Staffing Schedule 2012/13 is at Appendix 1.
143
The terms of reference of the VFM review focus on schools with an enrolment of
under 50 pupils. Prior to Budget 2012, a school of 50 pupils embraced all 1-teacher
and 2-teacher schools and a small number of 3-teacher schools (those with 49
pupils). Under Budget 2012, a school will be required to have 56 pupils in 2014
before a third teacher can be appointed.
Schools due to lose a teacher under the phased arrangements are entitled to appeal
to the Staffing Appeals Board. The Appeals process provides that if they are in a
position to show that their projected enrolments for the following September are likely
to be sufficient to allow them retain their classroom teacher over the longer term, their
appeal is upheld provisionally subject to confirmation that their actual enrolments in
September reach the required level.
Estimated effect on mean number of pupils in the small schools by 2014
Table 7.3 shows the mean class size for each teacher size of school in 2010/11,
before any adjustment to the staffing schedule arising from Budget 2012:-
Table 7.3 Mean number of pupils per teacher size of school in
2010/11 prior to Budget 2012
Minimum no of
pupils
Maximum no
of pupils
Mean no of
pupils
1
5
11
8
2
12
48
31
3
49
80
63
4
81
114
95
5
115
144
128
6
145
172
156
7
173
177
174
8
178
204
190
9
205
231
217
10
232
258
243
11
259
285
270
12
286
312
296
13
313
339
324
14
340
366
350
15
367
393
379
16
394
420
403
Teacher no.
In order to estimate the mean class size for each teacher size of school in 2014, following full
implementation of the Budget 2012 measures, Table 7.4 below indicates the mean class size
for schools of 1,2,3,4 teachers based on the 2010 enrolment.
144
Table 7.4 Estimated mean number of pupils per teacher size of school in 2014/15
( 2011/12 enrolments used as basis of estimation)
Teacher No
Minimum number of
pupils
Maximum number
of pupils
Mean number of pupils
1
8
19
15
2
20
55
37
3
56
85
71
4
86
114
98
5
115
144
128
6
145
172
156
7
173
177
174
8
178
204
190
9
205
231
217
10
232
258
243
11
259
285
270
12
286
312
296
13
313
339
324
14
340
366
350
15
367
393
379
16
394
420
403
Budget 2012 adjusted the allocation of teachers to schools of 1- 4 teachers. It did not make
any adjustment to schools of 5 teachers upwards. Table 7.5 shows the estimated increase in
the mean number of pupils per class teacher by 2014, based on 2011/12 enrolment levels.
145
Table 7.5 Estimated mean enrolment in small
schools by 2014 (estimated using the 2011/12
enrolments)
Effect of full implementation of Budget 2012
Mean number of pupils
Teacher No
2010
2014
Increase
1
8
15
+7
2
31
37
+6
3
63
71
+8
4
95
98
+3
The projected increase in the mean number of pupils per school in schools of 1 to 4
teachers by 2014 suggests that the full implementation of the Budget 2012 measure
will achieve greater efficiency in the distribution of teaching posts in these schools.
2.
Teacher allowances
Out of the teacher’s pay subhead of approx €2 billion, some €312m was paid to
teachers in the form of allowances (2011). There are eleven major categories of
allowance but three of them constitute approximately €295 million (95% of the total
allowances paid). They are:
• Qualification allowances
• Post of Responsibility allowances
• Supervision allowances
Teacher allowances for qualifications
A primary teacher’s salary consists of basic pay plus an allowance for academic
qualifications. The academic qualifications allowances include degree allowances
(primary/masters/doctorate) and an allowance for teachers with specific qualifications
in special education. There are detailed rules and conditions associated with the
allowances and the combinations of allowances that are permissible. With effect from
1 February 2012 no addition to the common basic pay scale may be paid to new
beneficiaries. This includes qualification allowances (Circular 3/2012). Approximately
€140m was paid in Qualification Allowances in 2011.
Post of responsibility allowances
Social partnership agreements in the mid 1990s resulted in revised in-school
management structures in primary schools and the consequent creation of significant
additional posts of responsibility (PORS). The posts were based on mainstream
class teacher numbers. The posts of responsibility are the Principal, Deputy Principal,
146
Assistant Principal (formerly Grade A post) and Special Duties Post (formerly Grade
B post).
Given the shortfall identified in the public finances during 2008, the Government
implemented a recruitment and promotion moratorium across the civil and public
sector including the civil service, local authorities, non-commercial state bodies, the
th
Garda Síochána and the Permanent Defence Forces with effect from 27 March,
2009. The measures had an immediate impact for schools in relation to the filling of
promotion posts other than those of Principal and Deputy Principal. The practical
effect of the moratorium in relation to 3-teacher schools and higher, while some of the
existing teachers in these sized schools have middle management PORS, the
numbers involved are reducing due to the continued impact of the moratorium. It is
therefore reasonable to assume for the purpose of the VFM review that over the
medium to longer term that the POR allowances will be confined to Principal and
Deputy Principal. In relation to 2-teacher schools, it is a reasonable assumption that
the 2 teachers in all 2-teacher school have allowances (one as Principal and the other
as a Special Duties Teacher – effectively a Deputy Principal) as the majority do.
Appendix 2 lists the Principal and Deputy Principal allowance applicable to the
various sizes of school in 2011/2012.
A limited alleviation to the moratorium was introduced in August 2011 but it only
applies to primary schools whose enrolment is 400 pupils or more and that are
experiencing difficulty due to non-filling of an Assistant Principal post. These schools
are outside the scope of the VFM review.
In 2011 a total of €103m was paid in teacher allowances for posts of responsibility.
Teacher supervision allowances
Teachers are obliged to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of
pupils and to participate in supervising pupils when the pupils are on school
premises, during school time and/or on school activities. Since 2003, an allowance
has been payable for undertaking supervision duties (Circular 18/03). Under the
terms of DES Circular 3 of 2012 no allowance for supervision and substitution may be
st
payable to a new beneficiary from 1 February 2012.
In 2011 a total of €52m was paid in supervision allowances.
Each school is entitled to 37 hours supervision for each full-time member of teaching
staff (including temporary full-time posts) or to a minimum of 122 hours per school,
whichever is the greater. In the case of 1, 2 and 3 mainstream classroom teacher
schools the standard payment (37 hours) is made to each teacher undertaking
supervision duties. A further grant is paid to the Board of Management by the
Department to facilitate the cost of external supervisors or any additional payments
due to teaching staff as a consequence of working in excess of 37 hours supervision.
Other teacher allowances
The total of the other allowances paid to teachers came to €18m in 2011. These
included 35 year allowance, special education allowance, teaching through Irish
allowance, Secretary to the Board of Management allowance, teaching in the Gaeltacht
area allowance, secondment allowance, children’s allowance and island allowance.
147
3.
Allocation of non-mainstream class teachers
Non-mainstream teachers are allocated separately. While the role of such support
teachers can vary, the most common are Learning Support Teachers and Resource
Teachers.
(a)
Teachers allocated under the General Allocation Model (GAM)
The general allocation model (known as GAM), introduced in 2005, provided for the
allocation to schools of permanent Learning Support/Resource Teachers on a basis
of enrolment to cater for the needs of pupils with learning difficulties and special
educational needs arising from high-incidence (i.e. frequently occurring) disabilities.
The GAM has been reviewed and adjusted and the adjustment took effect from
September 2012. It now combines general allocation of learning support and also
language support into a single and simplified allocation for all primary schools. The
single allocation process for GAM and language support involves the allocation of the
equivalent of circa 4,100 posts as follows:
Table 7.6
Allocation per mainstream classroom teaching
post under the GAM (since Sept 2012)
School type
Allocation per mainstream classroom
teaching post
All-boys school
5 hours per week (0.2 of a post)
Mixed school
5 hours per week (0.2 of a post)
All-girls school
4 hours per week (0.16 of a post)
Most small schools are co-educational. Only nine single gender small schools were
identified during the course of the Review.
There is an additional allocation for schools with high concentrations of pupils that
require language support. These schools are not within the scope of the VFM.
As a result of the revision of the GAM all schools are treated the same in that every
school receives its allocation based on the number of mainstream classroom
teachers. It is a more simplified and transparent system than that which pertained
previously. Under the revised system, the pupils in the smaller schools with lower
average class sizes will benefit more given that the allocation is made on the basis of
mainstream class teachers. For example, a 2-teacher 26-pupil school receives 10
hours support weekly under the GAM (5 hours for each mainstream class teacher)
whereas a single class of 26 pupils taught by one teacher receives 5 hours support
weekly under the GAM.
(b)
Resource teachers
As part of reforms to the teacher allocation process, existing posts were used to put
in place a network of some 3,000 full-time resource posts in almost 1,700 base
schools throughout the country with effect from September 2012. These posts are
allocated on a permanent basis and the teachers in them will undertake NCSE
approved (low incidence) resource hours in the base schools or in neighbouring
148
schools. As resource posts are allocated based on the needs of children with low
incidence disabilities, they are based more on individual need than on school
enrolment figures. Small schools are treated on the same basis as other schools.
4.
Other pay overheads
Special Needs Assistants (SNAs) Provision
For the year 2012/13 there are 6,196 whole-time equivalent SNA posts in mainstream
primary schools. SNAs are allocated on the basis of assessed individual need rather
than on enrolment figures. Small schools are treated on the same basis as other
schools. SNAs have been subject to a 10% reduction in pay for new public service
st
recruits from 1 January 2011.
Department pay and other overhead costs which apply to all schools
All schools, irrespective of their size, incur a minimum overhead in terms of the
resources of:
• Department inspectorate
• Department educational psychologists
• Department schools administration sections
The Department’s Inspectorate implements an annual programme of inspections
across the country which is managed through five regional business units. Within
each region, primary schools are allocated to inspectors on the basis of the number
of teachers within a district. This means that the number of schools assigned to
individual inspectors across the country varies significantly, depending on regional
demographics. The Inspectorate uses a range of inspection models to ensure
effective quality assurance coverage of primary schools. The models include wholeschool evaluations, incidental inspections, follow-through inspections, thematic
inspections of curricular or other themes and inspections of probationary
teachers. Incidental inspections and inspections of probationary teachers, focus on
practice in individual classrooms and therefore these inspections take a similar
amount of an inspector’s time in a classroom, whether the classroom is in a big or a
small school. , In the case of whole-school type inspections, small schools require a
disproportionate allocation of inspection time relative to larger schools. In addition to
its evaluative work in schools, the Inspectorate is currently engaged in a programme
of advisory visits to schools to support the implementation of school-self evaluation.
The clustering of small schools for these advisory visits enables the Inspectorate to
achieve significant resource efficiencies in this aspect of its programme of work.
Schools are allocated to NEPS psychologists on the basis of pupil numbers, with an
additional weighting mechanism to allow for additional service to DEIS schools and
others using the GAM formula. Because small schools (less than 50 pupils) would
receive an amount of time allocation per annum that would be too little to allow for
any reasonable service, they are currently allocated a minimum time allocation of 2
days psychologist time per year. Schools without an allocated NEPS psychologist
with fewer than 50 pupils are entitled to commission 1 psychological assessment per
year on the Scheme for Commissioning Psychological Assessments (SCPA) scheme
regardless of the number of pupils enrolled (from 1 to 49). This demands
disproportionate resourcing from the scheme.
An integral part of the NEPS service to schools involves a yearly planning meeting
with the principal and relevant teachers, usually at the start of the year. Most schools
wish to have this, regardless of size, which is time-consuming of itself – although a
valuable means of consultation/advice to schools in prioritising needs. However, with
149
increasing demands on the service, a cap on NEPS numbers and ongoing loss of
staff due to retirements, NEPS is exploring means of grouping small schools for
service. A model is being piloted of group consultation to provide a consultative
service to clusters of small schools.
Administrative staff in the Department’s Schools Divisions conduct regular business
with every one of the State’s 3,159 primary schools. For example, every school gets
notified annually of its staffing entitlement for the forthcoming school year and its right
to appeal this entitlement. The Department’s administrative staff issue guidelines to
all schools on questions such as employment, disciplinary procedures and operation
of the Board of Management. All of these issues generate regular contact between
each school and the appropriate administrative person in the Department. While the
contact would be greater in the case of a large school with big staffing numbers,
nevertheless there is a fixed minimum amount of contact necessary for every school,
irrespective of its size. Administrative and Professional/Technical staff in the
Department’s Planning and Building Unit have significant contact with any primary
school that is requesting a building project, or has been approved for such a project.
7.4.2 Running costs
The main source of direct funding to primary schools is the capitation grant which is
designed to meet schools' general running costs. Capitation funding is intended to
contribute to the day to day running costs of schools and consequently should be
used to meet the costs of items such as heating, lighting, cleaning, insurance and
general upkeep in schools. It should also be noted that a proportion of the grant is
intended to be used by schools to assist with the purchase of teaching materials and
resources. All primary schools also receive an ancillary services grant which is
designed to support the provision of caretaking and secretarial services. There are a
small number of schools who do not receive the ancillary services grant but instead
are provided with secretarial or caretaking assistance whose salary is fully funded by
the Department under a scheme which dates from 1978/79. For the purpose of
analysis in the VFM Review, it is assumed that all schools do not have any secretary
or caretaker under the 1978/79 scheme and therefore qualify for the full ancillary
services grant.
Capitation grants and ancillary services grant are paid on a per-pupil basis. A
minimum level of capitation and ancillary services grant is a payable to small school
(of 60 pupils or less) which is equivalent to the rate of a 60-pupil school.
Gaelscoileanna receive a higher rate of capitation than that which applies to
mainstream primary schools because of their role in the promotion of the Irish
language. Special School pupils and pupils in Special Classes in ordinary National
Schools also attract a higher rate of capitation. The rates depend on the level of the
pupil’s disability with the maximum rate in 2011/12 being €936 per pupil. Model
Schools do not receive any capitation funding in respect of their mainstream pupils as
72
their running costs are paid directly by the Department.
Model schools do receive
the extra capitation in respect of their pupils in Special Classes.
72
th
There are 9 model schools. Model schools were an initiative in the middle of the 19
century where the National Board of Education was the patron. The model schools were
completely funded and managed by the National Board. They were conducted on the
principle of mixed or multi denomination. In 1863 the Hierarchy declare an outright ban on
Catholics attending the model school and this resulted in a halt in their development. Today,
nine model schools remain and the Minister is patron of them.
150
The VFM Review does not include Special Schools. It does include Special Class
pupils in ordinary primary schools. In the case of the 586 small schools within the
terms of reference of the Review, thirteen of these schools had seventy special class
pupils. As this is not a big number of schools/pupils in the context of the Review, the
focus of the Review was kept on the mainstream rate for the ordinary primary school
pupil.
Budget 2012 announced a reduction of 2% in funding for capitation and ancillary
services grants to all schools in each of 2012 and 2013 and a further 1% reduction in
each of 2014 and 2015. The Budget specified that the reduction is to be applied to
the basic capitation rates and that the new basic rate for primary schools would be
€183 (reduced from €190 prior to the Budget).
Table 7.7 outlines the capitation and ancillary services grant rates which applied prior
to Budget 2012 and those calculated to apply by 2014, having phased in the funding
reductions:
Table 7.7 :
Effect in 2014 of reduction in capitation and ancillary services grant
funding for primary schools
Capitation Grants
2011
2014
Schools in which a board of management has
been established
€190 per pupil
€173 per pupil
Minimum grants to small schools (60 pupils or
less)
€11,400
€10,380
Scoileanna lán Ghaeilge outside the Gaeltacht
€214.12 per pupil
€194.97
Minimum grant to Scoileanna lán Ghaeilge
outside the Gaeltacht
€12,847.20
€11,698.2
Per pupil rate
€147
€147
Minimum grants to small schools (60 pupils or
less)
€8,820
€8,820
73
Ancillary Services Grant
7.4.3 Conclusions on identifying current costs applicable to schools
The foregoing analysis indicates that over 90% of all first-level expenditure is current
in nature and most of this is accounted for by pay and superannuation. Measures
introduced in the period since 2009 are designed to curb current expenditure.
Notwithstanding the cost-cutting measures, certain base costs apply to every school
to enable them function. These base costs include:
•
•
•
Teacher salaries – with teachers allocated based on pupil enrolment according
to the staffing schedule (Appendix 1)
Principal and Deputy Principal allowances (Appendix 2)
Resource/EAL post allocation as per the GAM (Table 7.6)
73
Calculated as being 12.7% higher than the rate for ordinary national schools. This was the
differential in 2011.
151
•
•
Capitation grant
Ancillary services grant
(Table 7.7)
(Table 7.7)
In particular, in regard to the small schools, the revision to the staffing schedule is
relevant to identifying school costs in the medium term. Any analysis of school costs
should be predicated on the full implementation of the revised schedule. It should
also take into account the reduction in capitation and ancillary grant services funding,
the moratorium on public service promotion, the prohibition on payment of allowances
other than for Principal and Deputy Principal and the revised General Allocation
Model for Learning Support.
Apart from these base current costs there are two other sets of current costs which
cannot be apportioned directly to individual schools. These are current costs related
to individual pupils and current overhead costs which relate to all schools. The main
ones are as follows:
Current costs related to individual pupils include:
•
•
•
3,000 approx Resource teachers for pupils with low incidence disabilities
6,196 Special Needs Assistants who are allocated based on individual pupil
needs in mainstream primary schools
School transport costs which are based on an individual pupil’s distance from
their school (€113m in 2011).
•
Current overhead costs which cannot be apportioned to individual schools/pupils
include:
• Department pay and other overheads (€31m in 2011)
• Other grants and services (€89m in 2010)
Proposed approach to identifying per pupil costs for small schools and larger
schools
It is proposed to take the base running costs itemised above as they will be in 2014
and to apply them to schools from 1 teacher to 16 teachers using the 2014 estimated
mean enrolments for each teacher size of school ( identified in Table 7.8). Please
refer to Appendix 3 which outlines the basis on which costs are calculated.
Table 7.8 and Chart 16 show the estimated annual current expenditure per pupil in
school size based on teacher numbers. The main emphasis in the following analysis
is on the mean enrolment numbers (i.e. the mean enrolment numbers for each school
size as per the 2011/12 school year data) but given the variation in pupil numbers,
per pupil expenditure based on minimum and maximum enrolment number for each
size bracket is also shown.
Chart 17 shows the estimated current annual expenditure per pupil in school size
based on pupil numbers. The school size is described in bands of 10 pupils, starting
from 10 pupils and continuing to 200 pupils. The green bars in the chart mark the
thresholds for appointment of an additional teacher based on pupil enrolment. It can
be seen that the appointment of an additional teacher results in higher pupil costs
around the appointment threshold.
152
Table 7.8
2014 estimated per pupil mean expenditure for
schools from 1- to 16- mainstream classroom teachers
Mainstream
Classroom
Teacher No
Maximum
Expenditure
per pupil
Minimum
Expenditure per
pupil
Mean Expenditure
per pupil
1
€12,881
€5,423
€6,870
2
€8,941
€3,251
€4,833
3
€4,479
€3,045
€3,582
4
€3,859
€2,990
€3,425
5
€3,624
€2,933
€3,260
6
€3,433
€2,944
€3,213
7
€3,345
€3,277
€3,328
8
€3,594
€3,177
€3,387
9
€3,514
€3,154
€3,337
10
€3,453
€3,137
€3,311
11
€3,404
€3,123
€3,278
12
€3,378
€3,123
€3,275
13
€3,344
€3,112
€3,241
14
€3,327
€3,114
€3,241
15
€3,270
€3,095
€3,197
16
€3,281
€3,097
€3,214
153
Chart 16: Estimated per pupil cost in 2014 for pupils in schools from 1- mainstream
classroom teacher to 16- mainstream classroom teachers
€14,000
€12,000
Per pupil cost €
€10,000
2014 estimated pupil costs Maximum
Expenditure per pupil
2014 estimated pupil costs Miniumum
Expenditure per pupil
€8,000
€6,870
2014 estimated pupil costs Mean Expenditure
per pupil
€6,000
Linear (2014 estimated pupil costs Mean
Expenditure per pupil)
€4,833
€3,582
€3,425
€4,000
€3,387
€3,213
€3,214
€2,000
€0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
No of mainstream classroom teachers in the school
154
Chart 17: Annual per pupil cost in schools from 10 pupils to 200 pupils based on estimated mean
per pupil cost 2014
€12,000
€10,304
€10,000
€8,941
€5,960
€6,000
Linear
€4,470
€4,180
€3,702
€3,629
€3,576
€3,539
€3,456
€3,369
€3,363
€3,329
€3,311
€3,215
€3,217
€3,215
€3,141
€3,087
€3,008
€2,975
€4,000
€2,000
20
0
19
0
18
0
17
5
17
0
16
0
15
0
14
0
13
0
12
0
11
0
10
0
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0
10
of
pu
pi
ls
€0
N
o
Per pupil cost (€)
€8,000
No of pupils in the school
155
Table 7.9 shows the estimated additional cost premium for schools from 1 to 4
mainstream classroom teachers compared with an 8-teacher school. It shows a total
estimated premium of almost €45m per annum. A similar comparison with a 16teacher school shows a total additional premium of almost €62m per annum.
Table 7.9
Estimated additional annual cost premium for schools of 1, 2, 3 and 4
mainstream classroom teachers from 2014 compared with an 8-teacher school
A
B
Additional mean
Teacher
size of
per pupil
Mean
school
expenditure
Expenditure
(mainstream
compared with
per pupil
an 8 teacher
classroom
teachers)
school
C
Expected
number of
Total
pupils in 2014 estimated
(based on
additional
2011/12
premium
enrolment
(A x B)
levels)
74
€6,870
€3,482
75
€4,833
€1,446
3
€3,582
€195
33,259
4
€3,425
€38
41,412
1
2
E
D
1,434
Cumulative
Premium
€4,989,706
€5.0m
€5.00m
21,945 €31,732,470
€31.73m
€36.73m
€6,485,756
€6.49m
€43.22m
€1,587,414
€1.59m
€44.81m
€44,795,346
€44.81
Overall conclusion on per pupil cost in small schools from 2014
Following is the answer to Key Question 3 posed at the outset of this chapter:
Based on an analysis of the mean enrolment numbers, a general trend is evident of
per pupil expenditure decreasing significantly from 1-mainstream classroom teacher
(€6,870), to 2- mainstream classroom teacher (€4,833), to 3-mainstream classroom
teacher (€3,582) to 4- mainstream classroom teacher schools (€3,425). The trend
flattens from four mainstream classroom teacher schools and above. The estimated
per-pupil operating cost of a 1-mainstream classroom teacher school (€6,870) is
more than twice that of a pupil in a 16-teacher school (€3,214) Due to the nature of
74
The published 2011/12 enrolment data shows 103 schools with an enrolment of under 20
pupils. Nine schools are excluded for the purpose of Table 7.9 as they would exaggerate the
premium. The reason is that in the case of six of them, the schools closed on 31/8/12. Two
schools amalgamated. (In one case, the amalgamated school is a 2-teacher school. In the
other case, the amalgamated school is an 11-teacher school.)The final school excluded is a
school that was newly established in 2011/12 located in an area of rapid population growth. It
had an enrolment of 16 pupils in September 2011 which increased to 87 pupils in September
2012. Excluding these nine schools reduces the number of schools of less than 20 pupils to
94(from 103) and the number of pupils to 1,434 (from 1,524)
75
The published 2011/12 enrolment data shows 597 schools with an enrolment of 20 – 55
pupils. One of these schools is excluded for the purpose of this table as it would exaggerate
the premium. The reason is that in 2011/12 it was in its first year of establishment in a
growing area. Its 2012/13 enrolment was 61 pupils. Excluding this school reduces the
number of schools to 596 and the number of pupils to 21,945 (from 21,967).
- 156 -
the allocation of teachers with reference to enrolment numbers, there is much
variation within each size bracket (by mainstream classroom teacher size).
Expenditure per pupil in 1- and 2- mainstream classroom teacher schools in particular
fluctuates considerably, reflecting the disproportionate effect that the addition of one
pupil can make in achieving the threshold. For example a school with 21 pupils and a
school with 55 pupils are both allocated two mainstream classroom teachers. Per
pupil expenditure in two mainstream classroom teacher schools ranges accordingly
from €3,251 to almost three times this at €8,941. There is a similarly wide range of
per-pupil expenditure in the class of 1- mainstream classroom teacher schools. There
is a variation in excess of €7,000 from the lowest per-pupil expenditure of €5,423 to
the highest at €12,881. Variation between current expenditure per-pupil at the
minimum, maximum and mean enrolment levels by school size as measured by
number of mainstream classroom teachers is much less from the 6-teacher school
size and greater.
The overall conclusion is that in 2014 there will be a cost premium associated
with 1- and 2- mainstream classroom teacher schools of almost €37m even
when all the financial adjustments are made in 2014.
7.5 Capital expenditure
Capital funding is available to schools for a range of programmes including additional
accommodation (permanent builds or prefabricated units), the Summer Works
76
Scheme , the provision of furniture and equipment, the continuation of remediation
77
programmes (asbestos, radon and mould), emergency works and miscellaneous
items as they arise.
The allocation of capital grants is on the basis of an assessment of applications
received by schools for participation in specific schemes subject to, inter alia,
available funding; meeting specified criteria; and a recognised requirement for
78
funding. Accordingly, capital expenditure (with the exception of minor works grants )
is by its nature ad hoc and varies considerably from year to year and from school to
school. It is not possible to definitively isolate small school capital costs.
7.5.1 Pattern of capital expenditure (2000 - 2012)
Resources devoted to capital expenditure for primary schools increased greatly from
2000 to 2008. Table 7.10 shows the annual expenditure from 2000 to 2012. The
capital budget is spent on the purchase of sites, provision of new buildings, (including
furnishing and equipping) and extending and refurbishing existing buildings and rental
of temporary accommodation where required.
76
The purpose of the Summer Works Scheme is to devolve funding to individual school
authorities to undertake small-scale building works / water conservation measures which,
ideally, can be carried out during the summer months or at other times that avoid disrupting
the operation of the school.
77
The Emergency Works Scheme is aimed at ensuring the availability of funding for urgent
works to those schools that are most in need of resources as a result of an unforeseen event
of a capital nature that can arise during the course of a school year.
78
These grants are allocated to all schools for the general upkeep and maintenance of school
buildings.
- 157 -
Table 7.10
Capital Expenditure on primary schools 2000 to 2012 (€m)
Year
2000
2001
€103
€140
2002
€173
2003
€175
2004
€171
2005
€267
2006
2007
€245
2008
€399
€489
2009
€329
2010
€213
2011
2012
€289
€204
There are two principal reasons for the increased expenditure:
•
Firstly, demographic pressures as outlined in Chapter 2. As also outlined in Chapter
2, this growth is predicted to continue until at least 2015, and possibly 2020.
•
Secondly, there is a legacy of under-investment in existing school buildings for many
years, which has left them in need of significant refurbishment and/or modernisation
works. Many existing schools date from a time when schools were built with
classrooms which are small by modern standards and do not facilitate the delivery of
the modern curriculum. Many schools have little, if any, ancillary accommodation,
such as teaching space for resource/learning support instruction, Special Needs
Units, libraries, PE Halls or GP rooms. The appointment in recent years of significant
numbers of new teachers and resource/support/special needs staff to schools has
increased the demand for such ancillary accommodation in order to ensure the
effective delivery of service by such staff.
In order to address some of these needs for small schools, the DES operated a Small
Schools Scheme in the period 2003 – 2007. Specific funding was set aside for this scheme.
The purpose of the Scheme was to devolve funding to individual school authorities to
undertake smaller scale building works such as refurbishment of existing buildings/provision
of small extensions with guaranteed funding. During the years 2003 to 2007, 399 primary
schools were allocated funding under the Small Schools Scheme with a total allocation of
over €181m for projects ranging from the extension and refurbishment of 2-classroom, 3classroom and 4-classroom schools to the replacement building of new 2 and 3 classroom
schools.
7.5.2 Present position regarding capital expenditure
The Department operates a prioritisation system for all applications for capital works. The top
priority projects (known as Band 1) consist respectively of:
•
New schools or extensions in developing areas
•
Accommodation for special needs students
•
Schools that are structurally unsound
•
Rationalisation projects
With current demographic pressures most of the capital budget is prioritised towards the
delivery of new schools and extensions in developing areas. This is in order to ensure that
every child has a school place. As outlined in Chapter 3, the minimum size of new school
being established is at least 8 classrooms, and more commonly 16 classrooms.
- 158 -
7.5.3 Capital costs for new school buildings
In general, unit capital costs are less for the larger schools. Table 7.11 provides an estimate
of the unit capital costs in the various standard sizes of new school buildings.
Table 7.11: Estimated Capital Building Cost of Selected Standard School Sizes
Number of mainstream classrooms
Standard Size:
Total square metres:
Cost on basis of
€930 per sq m:
External Works
Allowance @
maximum of 12.5%:
Fixed furniture and
fittings
Abnormal costs
Water treatment
79
plant allowance
Ideal minimum
size of site
Fees
Allowance for loose
furniture
Total Construction
cost (excluding site
acquisition costs)
Estimated Cost:
Estimated mean
number of pupils in
2014
Estimated mean
per pupil cost
2
4
6
8
12
16
253
790
1011
1365
1863
2358
€0.23m
€0.74m
€0.94m
€1.27 m
€1.73m
€2.19 m
€0.03m
€0.09m
€0.12m
€0.16m
€0.22m
€0.27m
€0.04
€0.04
€0.04
€0.04
€0.04
€0.04
€0.03m
€0.11m
€0.14m
€0.19m
€0.26m
€0.33m
€0.06m
€0.06m
€0.08m
€0.0m
€0.0m
€0.0m
2 acres
2 acres
2 acres
2 acres
3 acres
3 acres
€0.03m
€0.08m
€0.1m
€0.14m
€0.18m
€0.23m
€0.01
€0.02
€0.03
€0.04
€0.06
€0.08
€0.4m
€1.1m
€1.4m
€1.88m
€2.45 m
€3.1m
37
98
156
190
€10,810
€11,224
€8,974
€9,894
296
403
€8,277
€7,692
79
The treatment plant allowance is an estimated requirement for rural schools. Rural schools
for the purpose of this exercise are regarded as schools of up to 6 classrooms
- 159 -
Table 7.11 does not include site costs. Site costs are a major variable as land prices
have fallen significantly in recent years and tend to vary a lot depending on location.
To a certain extent, the inclusion in above table of estimated costs for schools of 2 to
6 classrooms is an academic exercise as the DES does not generally build schools of
that size. The DES builds schools from 8 classrooms up. In general as school size
increases from 8 classrooms up, capital expenditure per pupil decreases.
7.5.4
Conclusions regarding capital expenditure
The capital budget covers a range of works for all first-level schools (ordinary primary
schools and special schools) Capital expenditure is by its nature ad hoc and varies
considerably from year to year and from school to school. It is not possible to isolate
a small schools capital programme. Capital investment has increased greatly in
recent years in order to meet demographic needs and to address under-investment in
schools. There are going to be continued demographic pressures which mean capital
expenditure will be prioritised towards the provision of pupil places in new and
developing areas. The small schools scheme benefited 399 primary schools in the
years 2003 – 2007. The Department does not now build schools of less than 8
classrooms. In general, as school size increases from 8 classrooms up, capital
expenditure per pupil decreases.
Based on the foregoing, it is not regarded as practical to take account of capital costs
in the estimation of per pupil costs for small schools.
7.6 Findings
This chapter has indicated that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Class size is smallest, and pupil-teacher ratio lowest, in smaller schools while class
sizes are largest, and pupil teacher ratio highest, in larger-sized schools. In general,
as school size decreases so too does class size and PTR, with the schools in the
smallest size categories being characterised by the smallest class sizes and lowest
PTR.
Current expenditure accounts for over 90% of all expenditure on primary schools.
The key component of current expenditure is pay (salaries and pensions of teachers
and non-teaching staff). The key driver for the appointment of staff in schools is
enrolments and the distribution of enrolments within schools.
A significant budgetary adjustment to the allocation of staff in schools of 1-, 2-, 3- and
4- mainstream classroom teacher schools is being phased in over a three year period
2012 – 2014.
There is a recruitment and promotion moratorium across the civil and public sector
which prohibits the filling of posts of responsibility in most circumstances, other than
those of Principal and Deputy Principal.
Supervision allowances and qualification allowances are not payable to new
beneficiaries.
The General Allocation Model for the allocation of learning support has been revised
to combine a general allocation of learning support and language support in a single
allocation, based on mainstream classroom teaching posts.
- 160 -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Resource teachers are allocated separately to undertaken NCSE approved (low
incidence) hours for pupils with low incidence disabilities.
Special Needs Assistants are allocated based on individual pupil need.
Certain overheads apply to all schools, such as the time of inspectors, psychologists
and Administration staff in the Department.
The main source of recurrent funding is the capitation and ancillary services grant. A
phased reduction of the overall amount of money paid to a school in these two grants
is taking place over a four year period 2012 – 2015 with the reduction to be applied to
the capitation element only.
There are other relevant costs which are not possible to disaggregate for application
to individual schools. These include the cost of school transport services, the cost
involved in administering and inspecting schools, providing services to schools such
as psychological services, services from the NEWB and the NCSE, and the capital
cost of maintaining schools.
Capital expenditure is facing significant and continued demands over the foreseeable
future. This is primarily due to demographic pressures, but also due to underinvestment in school buildings.
The revision to the staffing schedule for small schools is likely to have the effect of
increasing class sizes in schools of 1-, 2-, 3- and 4- mainstream classroom teachers
by 7 pupils, 6 pupils, 8 pupils and 3 pupils respectively.
Taking account of the main financial adjustments and based on expected mean
enrolment levels for the various sizes of school in 2014 (using 2011/12 enrolment
figures) an estimation exercise shows that a general trend is evident of estimated per
pupil expenditure decreasing significantly from 1-mainstream classroom teacher
(€6,870), to 2- mainstream classroom teacher (€4,833), to 3-mainstream classroom
teacher (€3,582) to 4- mainstream classroom teacher schools (€3,425). The trend
flattens from four mainstream classroom teacher schools and above. The estimated
per pupil operating cost of a 1-mainstream classroom teacher school (€6,870) is more
than twice that of a pupil in a 16-teacher school (€3,214).
There is an estimated significant continuing annual premium attached to schools of 1to 4-mainstream classroom teachers. When compared with the running costs of an
8-teacher school, the total premium is estimated to be €44.8 m per annum post-2014.
(When compared with a 16-teacher school, the total premium increases to almost
€62m). The Committee took the view though that the 8-teacher school is a more fair
comparison as the size is much closer to the small schools). A significant element of
the premium is related to 1-mainstream classroom teacher schools (€5m) and 2mainstream classroom teacher schools (almost €32m).
An analysis of the capital cost of providing additional school places indicates that it is
generally more efficient to build larger schools
- 161 -
Chapter 8
Exploration of options for re-organisation
Introduction
This Chapter outlines possible re-organisation options identified by the Committee; and
explores the impact of implementation of these reorganisation options on small schools
in twelve sample areas. Chapter 7 identified that 1- and 2-mainstream classroom
teacher schools will still more costly to run on a per-pupil basis post-2014 even
following the full implementation of the phased cuts in the staffing schedule in small
schools and the cuts to capitation/ancillary services grants for all schools. Effectively
the VFM review is seeking to identify the scope for further savings in addition to those
already made in Budget 2012. Exploration of options for re-organisation is carried out
based on 2014 grant levels and staffing allocations.
8.1 Exploration of re-organisation options:
The Committee considered a range of re-organisation and collaboration arrangements,
many of which are implemented in other jurisdictions. These arrangements range
across a spectrum, involving different levels of collaboration. The Committee identified
three principal reorganisation options which can be summarised as follows:
Option A:
Increase the minimum viability threshold for the continued
recognition of a school
Option B:
Amalgamation
Option C:
Federation
Option A. Increase the minimum viability threshold for school
recognition
The current minimum viability threshold is eight pupils. When a school’s enrolment
falls below eight pupils for two consecutive years, the Department initiates a process
to withdraw recognition. When the Minister withdraws recognition from a school
under the Education Act, Section 11(3) places a duty on the Minister to arrange for
alternative and appropriate education facilities for pupils who were enrolled in the
school on the date of withdrawal of recognition. Recognition withdrawal also results in
the redeployment of teachers and other support staff to other schools within the
region that require posts to be filled. Recognition withdrawal is likely to increase
school transportation costs depending on the proximity of neighbouring schools.
Depending on the number and capacity of neighbouring schools, recognition
withdrawal may not involve any additional accommodation requirements.
Recognition withdrawal of all small schools would have a disproportionate impact on
isolated communities which are not located in close proximity to larger schools; and
would result in pupils travelling further distances to avail of schooling. Accordingly,
the Committee considers that in certain circumstances small schools should be
- 162 -
maintained and that the proximity of the small school in question to another school
serving the same community should be central to considering issues of sustainability.
The Committee considers that this should apply for small schools that are more than
8km (5 miles) from another school. The Committee chose 8km (5 miles) so as to
ensure a reasonable commuting distance for young children. Schools below a certain
size and within 8km of another school serving the same community should not be
maintained. The key question is to identify what is the “certain size”? A related
question is to assess whether the current minimum viability threshold of 8 pupils is
appropriate in a modern context. As part of the exploration of these questions, the
Committee considered that for exploratory purposes, three sizes should be used,
namely:
•
12 pupils: the Committee considered it would be worth exploring the
effect if no school below 12 pupils is allowed to continue (except in the
case of an island) where it is the only school available. Therefore, for the
purpose of the exercise, the effect should be analysed of closing any
school whose enrolment falls to 11 pupils (or below) for two consecutive
years.
•
20 pupils: the threshold for the appointment of a second teacher will be
20 pupils by 2014. It would be useful to explore the effect of adopting 20
pupils as a minimum viability threshold. For the purpose of the exercise,
the effect should be analysed of closing any school whose enrolment falls
to 19 pupils (or below) for two consecutive years.
•
50 pupils: A 50 pupil threshold was chosen because the terms of
reference for the VFM review embrace all schools below 50 pupils. For
the purpose of the exercise, the effect was analysed of closing any
school whose enrolment falls to 49 pupils (or below) for two consecutive
years.
In exploring the effects of increasing the minimum viability threshold the Committee
took the view that at each increased threshold, schools impacted by the new
threshold would rationally seek to amalgamate with a similar neighbouring school(s) in
order to achieve the new threshold. This approach is to be taken in exploring this
option.
Option B.
Amalgamation
Amalgamation involves the formation of one school from two (or more) existing
schools. It involves the closure of the existing schools and the opening of one new
school that will have, substantially, the staff members and the pupils of the previously
existing schools. The location of the new school may be the site of one of the existing
schools or it may be on an entirely new site.
The main advantages of amalgamation are reduced expenditure arising from staffing
efficiencies and the allocation of one capitation and ancillary services grant to the
school. Other possible advantages are that amalgamation may reduce the potential
for a feeling of professional isolation, may provide a greater resilience to fluctuating
pupil numbers and would result in a larger peer group for pupils.
- 163 -
Description of amalgamation as it currently operates:
The initiative for reorganisation through amalgamation can arise from any source —
patron, board of management, staff, parents or the Department. The patrons involved
must approve the amalgamation and DES approval must also be secured
The school arising from the amalgamation process is a new school having a new roll
number and a new Board of Management. Pending the nomination of a Board of
Management for the new school the Department recognises either Chairperson of the
existing schools as an interim manager, on his/her nomination by the Patron.
Many primary school amalgamations in recent years tend to be in urban areas where
a boys’ and girls’ school amalgamate or a junior/senior school amalgamate. In a
number of cases, these schools would be adjoining or maybe on the same campus.
Only minor capital investment is generally necessary in these cases to facilitate the
amalgamation. In other cases it is necessary to provide a new school to facilitate the
amalgamation. Amalgamations generally have attracted a high priority in terms of
capital resource allocation. The Department operates prioritisation system for all
applications for capital work. The top priority projects are designated as Band 1
projects. Within Band 1 there are four sub-divisions. The top priority is for a school in
a rapidly developing area where there is no existing school or where existing provision
is unable to meet the demand for places. Projects to facilitate rationalisation (such as
amalgamation projects) are designated Band 1 projects and are fourth in the order of
priority of Band 1 projects. There are a number of primary schools which have
amalgamated in recent years and are operating on a split-site basis. Generally they
are in a town or on the same campus. In some of these instances no significant
capital investment was necessary. In other cases, capital projects are either in
architectural planning, at tender/construction or have completed construction.
The general position in the case of schools amalgamating is that the combined
enrolment of the schools concerned on the 30th September of the previous schoolyear determines the staffing level applicable in the new school entity. As a special
concession, to facilitate amalgamation, the Department may have allowed an extra
teacher over and above that warranted by enrolment numbers.
An agreement exists between the Department, the INTO and Catholic Primary
Schools Management Association on the procedures, consultation process and
staffing arrangements to apply in the case of amalgamations. Redeployment
arrangements are in place so that eligible teachers who are surplus in one school can
transfer to other schools. Where a post is to be suppressed, the most junior eligible
teacher will normally be placed on the appropriate panel for redeployment to another
school. Teachers on a panel are obliged to accept offers made if the post is within a
45km radius, of the teacher’s former school. In terms of overall education costs, it
should be noted that holders of posts of responsibility who are compulsorily redeployed through the panel retain their allowances under current arrangements.
Outline of amalgamation model proposed by the Committee for exploration:
•
Amalgamation may involve schools of any size (small schools and larger schools).
•
The amalgamated school would have a minimum pupil enrolment of 50 pupils and be
likely to maintain at least 50 pupils into the future.
•
Combined enrolment numbers of the schools involved in the amalgamation will be
used to determine the allocation of teaching resources to the school.
- 164 -
•
The amalgamated school will have a new roll number and name and there will be one
new Board of Management and Principal. Unless the amalgamated school has seven
(or more) mainstream class teachers, it will have a teaching Principal in accordance
with the provisions of the staffing schedule.
•
The Department’s normal regulations apply in regard to retention of allowances for
posts of responsibility for existing post-holders.
•
In a case where a very small school amalgamates with its nearest neighbouring
school which is a much larger school, the small school would be subsumed and
assimilated into the larger school. The small school would therefore be assimilated
into the larger school rather than amalgamate as equals. The teachers and pupils of
the former small school would form part of the staffing and enrolment of the larger
school but the governance arrangements for the larger school would remain. The
larger school would retain its current Principal, school name, roll number and Board of
Management.
•
Amalgamation could take place on a single site or on a split-site on the following
basis :
i)
single site amalgamation
Under this
arrangement, two or more small schools
would
assimilate/amalgamate with the nearest school to form a new school (with an
enrolment of at least 50 pupils) and the new school entity would be based on
the site of one of the previous schools. The pupil numbers involved in each of
the schools would determine whether the process is “assimilation” or
“amalgamation”.
In the case of a single-site amalgamation, the payment of the annual capitation
grant and ancillary services grant will be calculated on the pupil numbers in the
school on a per-capita basis in line with the normal rates applicable.
ii)
split-site amalgamation
Under this arrangement, two or more schools would amalgamate but the
new school entity could operate in the locations of two (or more) of the
previous schools.
Other assumptions applicable
amalgamations include:
to
the
examination
of
split-site
•
a minimum of 20 pupils at each location, subject to an overall school
size of at least 50 pupils.
•
The nearest school building of the amalgamated school to a pupil’s
home would be considered the nearest school for the purpose of
determining eligibility to school transport.
•
In recognition of the fact that there are fixed costs associated with
running each stand-alone school location, the minimum capitation and
ancillary services grant for each separate site are factored into the
- 165 -
exploration in the event that these continue to apply to each school
location in the split-site amalgamation.
•
In the case of a split-site amalgamation, each school location could
retain its own name for ease of identification purposes but will share a
common roll number.
The Committee proposes the split-site amalgamation option be explored for two reasons:
Firstly it could allow the small school(s) to continue in their community.
Secondly it is cost-effective because many of the school buildings have been upgraded
in recent years. Chapter 7 outlines the scale of investment which has taken place in
recent years under the Small Schools Scheme and the Permanent Accommodation
initiative. Given present limited availability of public funds, it is important to explore the
potential for using existing capital stock, wherever possible.
Option C.
Federation
Clustering in other jurisdictions can refer to many different forms of collaboration
ranging from the exchange of information and best practice, to the joint preparation of
common school policies and the sharing of resources such as teachers (particularly in
specialist areas), administrative staff and physical resources, such as a sports field.
These arrangements may also include transporting pupils from one school to another
to meet and work with their peers.
The main advantages are increased opportunities for gaining wider teaching
experiences, shared expertise, and professional growth opportunities reducing the
sense of professional isolation experienced by some teachers. For pupils, the key
advantages are increased opportunities to interact with their peer group and access to
a wider range of facilities and equipment. Other advantages may include reduced
workloads, joint planning possibilities and shared resources. Potential disadvantages
associated with such arrangements include that only a minority of schools achieve
sufficiently close relationships to enable them to consistently disseminate good
practices in school organisation, teaching and learning and that such arrangements
are time consuming to organise and support.
A variant of clustering in Northern Ireland is “confederation” – schools work in
partnership, exchanging teachers, pupils or both. It is an arrangement whereby “pupils
may be taught together for certain subjects, teachers may teach in more than one
school, specialist facilities may be used by all the schools, and the schools may share
administrative staff. Each school remains accountable to its own education sector and
may retain its own Principal and Board of Management. A confederation is in effect a
80
pool of expertise” . Other variations of clustering identified in the Northern Ireland
Bain report are co-location, where the proximity of schools facilitates collaboration
although each retains its particular ethos and identity, and shared campus, where
schools retain autonomy but share infrastructure.
Federation is a variant on the sharing of resources theme and can take on somewhat
different meanings in different jurisdictions. In Northern Ireland, this arrangement
refers to the closure of two or more schools to create a single multiple-site school with
one Principal and one governing body. These separate sites can be operated as
relatively independent units covering the whole age range or can be organised to
80
Schools for the Future: Funding, Strategy , Sharing - Dept of Education Northern Ireland Bain
report (2006) page 168
- 166 -
segregate junior and senior pupils. Another version of federation is similar to this but
each school site has a dedicated Principal.
Federation has much in common with amalgamation in that schools in a federation
help to maintain the social and cultural base of a community, while protecting schools
from their isolation.
81
a
The Irish Primary Principals Network (IPPN) proposed in a research paper
clustering model which envisaged each school retaining its current staffing and the
allocation of additional resources to support the cluster, including the appointment of a
cluster co-ordinator. Chapter 7 has identified that small schools are already
significantly more costly to run than larger schools, even with the staffing and grant
adjustments in Budget 2012. In terms of effectiveness of provision, Chapter 6 found
that school size was not correlated to a statistically significant degree with the quality
of educational outcomes examined. It also identified that in the case of half of all small
schools there is another school of the same type within a 5km distance. The terms of
reference for this value for money review include identifying alternative policy or
organisational approaches which would improve efficiency and effectiveness of
provision. Given that the Review has established that small schools are already more
costly to run than larger schools; that in many instances there is another similar
school in close proximity it would not be consistent with the terms of reference to
explore any option which would involve additional costs to those that exist already. As
the IPPN proposal does involve additional costs, the Committee is of the view that it
could not be considered.
A cost-neutral version of the IPPN proposal could be considered, as follows:
In a federation, continue to allocate staff to each site of the federated school as if it
were an independent school but appoint one Principal. Effectively, the federation
would maintain the same number of teaching staff as currently applies but it would
now have one Principal. In all probability, this Principal would have to be a teaching
Principal because the combined enrolment of the schools would be unlikely to reach
178 pupils which is the threshold for appointment of an Administrative Principal.
Therefore, the Principal would have to fulfil the leadership/management role for the
multi-site school and also teach a class. If the Principal was to cease being a class
teacher and act in an administrative capacity, the pupils from the Principal’s class
would have to be distributed to their colleague(s) which would impact negatively on
class size. This scenario is explored as one of Federation options.
Outline of federated model proposed by the Committee for exploration:
•
A federation can involve two (or more) small schools of less than 50 pupils.
•
The federated school would have a minimum pupil enrolment of 50 pupils and
be likely to maintain at least 50 pupils going into the future.
•
The units within a Federation should be located within a convenient distance of
each other (generally less than a maximum distance 15km) in order to facilitate
management
•
The Department will allocate teaching resources to the Federation based on
the combined enrolment numbers of the schools involved.
•
Where two or more small schools in an area wish to federate they must apply
jointly to the Department for approval of the arrangement. The Department will
weigh up the benefit of the proposal and take into account factors such as the
81
“New Horizons for Smaller Schools and Teaching Principalship in Ireland” published in
2005
- 167 -
numbers of pupils involved, the distances between the schools and the travel
implications for pupils and staff, the resources required for the federation, the
long-term sustainability of the proposal, past capital investment in the buildings
and likely future capital investment requirements.
•
A minimum of 20 pupils is necessary for each school location in the Federation
and the overall Federation would contain at least 2 school locations.
•
A pupil’s eligibility to school transport would be determined by the distance
between the nearest school location in the Federation and their home.
•
The Federation would share a common roll number and there would be one
Board of Management and Principal. However, each school location in the
Federation can retain its own name for identification purposes within the
Federation.
•
The Department’s normal regulations to apply in regard to retention of
allowances for posts of responsibility in relation to existing post-holders
•
In recognition of the fact that there are fixed costs associated with running
each stand-alone school location, the minimum capitation and ancillary
services grant are factored into the exploration in the event that these continue
to apply to each school location in the Federation.
•
Where a small school is within 8km of a similar type of school but cannot be
federated for reasons such as size/distance, the possibility of amalgamation
should then be addressed.
The Committee decided to explore also the cost impact of appointing an
administrative Principal to a Federation.
Difference between federation and amalgamation
Federation is a form of split-site amalgamation which is open to small schools
only. Amalgamation is an option open to schools of any size.
- 168 -
8.2
Selection of sample areas for analysis of reorganisation options
For the purposes of the analysis of the potential impact of reorganisation arrangements
as set out in 8.1, the 582 small schools can be sorted into four subsets based on their
distance to the nearest school of the same type:
Table 8.1 Four sub-sets of small schools (< 50 pupils) based on
their distance to the nearest school of the same type
Sub-set
no
Sub-set Description
No. of schools with
< 50 pupils
1
Small schools < 2 km from next nearest
school of the same type
2
Small schools > 2km and < 8km from next
nearest school of the same type
450
3
Small schools > 8km and < 10km from next
nearest school of the same type
20
4
Small schools more than 10km from next
nearest school of the same type
Total
20
92
582
In identifying the distance between schools and the nearest school of the same
type it should be noted that a strict distance criterion was used and
Parish/Diocesan and County boundaries were disregarded.
Sub-set 1 (20 small schools < 2km from nearest similar school)
These schools are extremely close to a similar school. Therefore federation is
not an option that is relevant to them. Given the relatively small number of
schools in this sub-set they should be examined individually and amalgamation
proposals drafted for them to be implemented in a quick time-frame. It should be
noted that fifteen of these schools are from Group 1 (namely Catholic, Englishspeaking, non-Gaeltacht schools), three are from Group 2 (Church of Ireland),
one is from Group 3 (Gaeltacht) and one is from Group 9(all-Irish, Catholic, nonGaeltacht). Of the fifteen Group 1 schools, ten of them are single gender (nine
boys only and one girls only).
Sub-set 2 (450 small schools that are between 2km and 8km from nearest
similar school)
Given the large number of schools involved, it was not considered feasible to
explore the potential impact of the re-organisation options on all of these
schools. Accordingly, sample areas were selected which had a high number of
small schools, with a view to achieving a 10% sample overall (in the region of 50
small schools).
For each sample area, the three potential re-organisation
options are applied to the small schools in order to identify implementation
issues and potential savings.
- 169 -
In order to ensure that the sampling was representative the 454 schools in subset 1 were classified according to their Group type (1- 7). Following is the
position:
•
85% of them (384 schools) are from Group 1 (Catholic, Englishspeaking, non-Gaeltacht)
•
5% of them (21 schools) are from Group 2 (Church of Ireland.
•
8% (37 schools) are from Group 3 (Gaeltacht)
•
The remaining 8 schools (2% of the total) are either island,
Presbyterian or all-Irish, non-Gaeltacht schools.
Accordingly, to ensure sampling was representative, it was decided to select ten
samples from Group 1 and one sample each from Groups 2 and 3 in order to
identify and reflect the issues that arise for 98% of the small schools which are
within an 8km distance of another school of the same type.
Sub-sets 3 & 4 (112 small schools which are > 8km from similar school)
Given the distance between schools in these sub-sets they were not examined in
terms of the sampling exercise.
8.3 Conduct of sampling exercise
How the sample areas were chosen
The sample areas were chosen from twelve distinct geographic locations. It was
identified in Chapter 3.3 that the eight counties of Galway, Mayo, Donegal, Cork,
Clare, Roscommon, Kerry and Tipperary have almost 70% of the total of all small
schools. For this reason, it was decided to select the sample areas from these
counties with the highest concentrations of small schools on the basis that these
areas should afford maximum opportunity to thoroughly explore the options. The
locations were identified from a visual inspection of the Department’s GIS map of all
primary schools where clusters of small schools appeared on the map.
Table 8.2 summarises brief details about the twelve sample areas. The schools in the
first ten sample areas (Samples 1 – 10) are all from Group 1 (Catholic, Englishmedium, non-Gaeltacht). The schools in Sample 11 are from Group 2 (Church of
Ireland) and the schools in Sample 12 are from Group 3 (Gaeltacht).
- 170 -
Table 8.2
Summary table of the twelve sample areas
Small Schools < 50 pupils
Sample
No
No of
schools
No of
pupils
Schools > 50 pupils
No of pupils
availing of
school
transport
No of
schools
No of
pupils
1
4
58
20
3
287
2
4
100
0
1
69
3
5
124
0
4
386
4
3
83
4
5
662
5
4
115
5
9
922
6
8
221
19
2
124
7
5
159
2282
3
381
8
5
134
0
3
332
9
4
125
0
8
913
10
4
92
10
1
72
11
3
85
31
0
0
12
4
102
4
1
51
Total
53
1,398
115
40
3,899
26 pupils
Average
school
size
8% of
pupils
Type of
school
being
analysed in
the sample
Group 1
(Catholic,
Englishspeaking,
non
Gaeltacht)
Group 2
Church of
Ireland
Group 3
Gaeltacht
97
pupils
Average
school
size
A map of each of the twelve sample areas is in Appendix 5. The map of each area is
followed by outline information on the sample area and the options explored for that
area during the sampling exercise. As the entire sampling material is very voluminous,
it would not be practical to include it all in this report.
82
There is also one remote area grant in payment to a family in this school who would be entitled
to avail of school transport if a service was available in their area
- 171 -
Interpreting the map of a sample area
All sample areas are anonymous. The primary schools are shown by a coloured dot
along with their 2010/11 enrolment (which was the most recent finalised enrolment
available when the exercise was conducted). A red dot and a number identify a small
school, namely a school that had enrolment of fewer than 50 pupils in 2010/11. A
green dot and a letter identify a school with enrolment of 50 pupils or more in 2010/11.
All primary schools within the area of the map are shown, irrespective of what group
they are in (namely Groups 1 – 7) in order to give the full picture of primary school
provision in the area.
8.3.1 Data examined for each school in a sample
A profile of basic details was compiled for each school, utilising information readily available
within the Department. The profile includes:
• Enrolment in 2001, 2006 and 2010 (in order to get an overview of recent enrolment
trends in the particular school)
• Staffing in 2010 and staffing predicted in 2014 based on a continuance of the 2010
enrolment level and based on the provisions of Budget 2012 in regard to the revision
of the staffing schedule.
• Capitation and ancillary grant services funding levels predicted in 2014 based on a
continuance of the 2010 enrolment level and taking into account the Budget 2012
provisions for a phased reduction in capitation funding and related grants.
• Inventory of existing accommodation in the building. The Department is in the
process of compiling an inventory of school accommodation and a completed return
has been received from the majority of schools. Where it has been completed, the
information is included.
• Capital investment in the building in recent years (since 2002 mainly)
• Distance by road to the nearest school(s) of the same type up to a maximum of 8 km.
The distance was obtained from the Department’s GIS system.
• Whether there is a school transport service to the school and the number of pupils
that avail of it and the minimum/maximum distance they travel
• Number of pupils, if any, in receipt of the remote area grant, and the distance they
have to travel to school
Each sample area includes some commentary on:
• population changes in the county in the previous three censuses (2002,2006 and
2011).
• Expected requirement up to 2017 for additional primary school places in the
catchment of the sample area based on recent birth data.
• Effect of the implementation of the revised staffing schedule announced in Budget
2012 on the schools in the sample area if their enrolment remains steady
Each sample area is explored in terms of possible implementation scenarios for the 3
options identified by the Committee, namely:
•
Option A.
Increase the
recognition
•
Option B.
Amalgamation
•
Option C.
Federation
minimum
viability
threshold
for
school
- 172 -
The exploration identifies possible scenarios, cost savings that might accrue on a net
basis and a per pupil basis and seeks to identify obvious implementation issues.
Explanatory comment on how the three options were explored in the sampling
exercise:
Option A:
Increase the minimum viability threshold
This option is explored incrementally on the basis of an increase of the minimum
threshold to:
• 12 pupils
• 20 pupils
• 50 pupils.
The approach taken is firstly to adopt the 12-pupil threshold and see if there is any
effect on the schools in the sample. If there is a school of less than 12 pupils, given
the fact that it would not have the minimum 20 pupil enrolment to be a stand-alone site
for a federation /amalgamation, its only option would in fact be to close and to
amalgamate with a nearby school. In selecting a partner for amalgamation, generally
the closest school is assumed. However, given the fact that many schools have a
number of potential partners within a close distance, if a nearby school (not
necessarily the nearest) could also be threatened by an increased minimum threshold,
the two schools may seek to amalgamate if they perceive it is in their mutual interest.
A similar situation applies at the 20- pupil minimum threshold. If a 50-pupil minimum
threshold was adopted, theoretically all the schools under 50 pupils could close. This
is not a practical proposition and it would not happen in reality. Rather if a 50-pupil
minimum threshold was imposed, schools would seek to amalgamate or federate with
neighbouring schools to form a school of more than 50 pupils. This is the approach
taken in the sampling exercise. In most cases, there are multiple options and multiple
scenarios. The sampling exercise seeks to identify some of the most likely scenarios
and to cost them. It does not claim to be exhaustive; it is simply an exploration to
identify implementation issues and an attempt to estimate likely savings from reorganisation. Local factors / community preferences are clearly very important factors
and given the constraints of the sampling approach within a value for money review it
would not be appropriate or possible to address these matters within the framework of
the study. If re-organisation was taking place in an area, all of these matters would
have to be considered.
Option B: Amalgamation
Amalgamation can involve schools of any size - small schools with bigger schools or
small schools with small schools. The amalgamation option is explored simply based
on the number of sites – 1 site and/or 2 site and/or 3 site and/or 4 site amalgamations –
depending on the possibilities in the sample area .
Option C: Federation
Federation is a form of split-site amalgamation for small schools only (of under 50
pupils in the sample areas). The federation option is explored on three different levels,
as follows:
• Firstly, it is explored based on the number of sites, namely 2 site and/or
3 site and/or 4 site federations – depending on the possibilities in the
sample area.
•
Secondly, it is explored on the basis of a teaching principal and on the
basis of an administrative principal.
- 173 -
•
Thirdly, it is explored on the basis of allocating each school site the
number of staff that it would be entitled to under the staffing schedule in
2014 if it were a stand-alone school.
The basis for cost calculations is the same as outlined in Chapter 7 (section
7 4.3)
Where federation does not prove a possibility for a small school, the possibility of
amalgamation (Option B) should be explored.
Option A: Increase the minimum viability threshold –
effect in the sample areas
8.4
A decision to increase the minimum viability threshold would have the likely effect that
the small schools impacted by a revised threshold would seek to amalgamate with
similar neighbouring schools (either through amalgamation or federation). For the
purposes of examining the effect in the sample areas, the exploration assumed that
they would amalgamate on a single-site basis with the nearest similar school.
Table 8.3 summarises the potential annual savings in the sample areas from Option
A, namely increasing the minimum viability threshold
.
Table 8.3
A
Increased
pupil
threshold
12 pupils
20 pupils
50 pupils
Option A: Increase minimum viability threshold – overview of potential annual
savings in the twelve sample areas
B
C
D
E
F
Maximum
possible
additional
transport
costs @
€900 per
eligible
pupil
G
H
I
Range of
net
annual
average
savings
per
amalgam
ation
(G/C)
Range
of per
pupil
annual
saving
(G/B)
No. of
pupils
overall
in the
amalgs
No of
amalgamations
explored to
achieve
increased
threshold
No of
schools
155
2
5
€125,839
-€18,000 to €4,500
€107,839 to
€121,339
€53,919 to
€60,670
€696 –
to €782
10
20
€809,231
-€131,400 to
-€32,850
€677,831 to
€776,381
€67,783 to
€77,638
€1,040
to
€1,191
28
63
€3,585,31
5
-€905,400 to
-€226,350
€2,679,915
to
€3,358,965
€94,811 to
€119,963
€832 to
€1,043
652
3,222
Gross
annual
savings
Range of
net annual
savings
- 174 -
Savings from adopting the 12-pupil threshold
Three of the small schools (out of 53 schools) were under the 12-pupil threshold. In
one of these cases, the school has already signalled its intention to close and
amalgamate with a nearby school so an amalgamation was not explored in that
instance. In another case, the amalgamation explored in order to achieve a 12-pupil
minimum threshold realised a very minimal saving (about €10,000 pa). In the third and
final case, an amalgamation realised a potential saving of about €100,000 p.a. (mainly
composed of the saving arising from a teaching post plus a Principal’s allowance plus
capitation/ancillary services grants).
Conclusion regarding adoption of a 12-pupil threshold in the samples:
The 12-pupil threshold affected only two schools out of a possible 53 small schools. Its
adoption in the twelve sample areas would achieve annual savings in the range of
approx €0.11m - €0.12m, depending on the uptake of school transport.
Savings from adopting a 20-pupil threshold
Twelve small schools (out of 53 schools) had an enrolment of between 12 pupils and
19 pupils. Ten amalgamations were explored in order to achieve the 20-pupil threshold.
In the case of three of these amalgamations, the estimated savings from amalgamation
were quite minimal (approx €6,000, €13,000 and €23,000 per annum per
amalgamation).This is because no teaching post was saved in any of these three
amalgamations
In the other nine cases, the annual estimated savings per amalgamation ranged from
€75,000 - €105,000. All of these cases all involved savings from one teaching post
less plus savings on Principal’s allowances, capitation/ancillary services grants etc.
Conclusion regarding adoption of a 20-pupil threshold in the samples:
The 20-pupil threshold impacted on just under a quarter of the small schools in the
twelve sample areas (12 schools out of 53 small schools). In the case of 9 of these 12
schools, the annual savings from amalgamation were of reasonable significance
(€75,000 – 105,000 p.a.). Depending on uptake of school transport, adoption of a
minimum 20-pupil threshold would achieve savings in the range of €0.68m to €0.78m
annually in the twelve sample areas.
Savings from adopting a 50-pupil threshold
All 53 schools in the sample areas were under the 50-pupil threshold.
Twenty-eight possible amalgamations were identified and explored specifically to
achieve minimum 50-pupil threshold. In two instances, the amalgamations would
actually cost additional monies as they would not result in any staff saving but could
potentially result in additional school transport costs. In eight instances, there was a
substantial estimated saving of about €140,000 per annum per amalgamation. In these
eight cases, the substantial saving was achieved either because the amalgamation
involved three schools or else the amalgamation resulted in the saving of two teaching
posts. In the remaining eighteen cases, the amalgamations achieved annual savings of
in the region of €70,000 per annum.
Conclusion regarding adoption of a 50-pupil threshold in the samples:
Depending on uptake of school transport, adoption of a minimum 50-pupil threshold
would achieve savings in the range of €2.7m - €3.4m annually in the twelve sample
areas. Each amalgamation would have to be examined to ensure that it made financial
sense.
- 175 -
8.5 Option B:
Amalgamation – effect in the sample areas
Amalgamation was an option for all fifty-three small schools in the twelve sample areas.
The amalgamations explored involved small schools amalgamating with their closest
similar school, irrespective of the size of the closest school. As there were a number of
scenarios, the summary of the detailed working of the exploration is contained in
Appendix 6.
Each amalgamation option was explored on a single-site basis and, if it appeared
possible, on a 2-site or 3-site basis also. Table 6.X.1 in Appendix 6 lists all the
amalgamations explored for the twelve sample areas.
Single site amalgamations involving either 2, 3 or 4 schools were identified as an option
in all sample areas (fifty three amalgamations in total).
Two-site amalgamations involving 2, 3 or 4 schools were identified as an option in most
sample areas (thirty one amalgamations in total).
Three-site amalgamations, each involving three schools, were identified less frequently
(nine amalgamations in total).
As the number of sites involved increased, the number of pupils in the amalgamation
tended to increase also. In single-site amalgamations, an average of 109 pupils was
involved. In the two-site cases and three-site cases, there was an average of 119
pupils and 140 pupils respectively.
8.5.1 Overview of savings from amalgamation
Table 6.X.2 in Appendix 6 details the net savings for all the amalgamations explored,
assuming maximum uptake of school transport.
Table 8.4 below summarises the potential annual savings from the amalgamations
explored in the sampling exercise.
- 176 -
Table 8.4
No of sites
1 site
2 sites
3 sites
No. of
pupils
overall
5,787
3,688
1,259
Option B: Amalgamation – overview of potential savings in the twelve sample areas
No of
amalgamations
No of
schools
Gross
annual
savings
Maximum
possible
additional
transport
costs @ €900
per eligible
pupil
Range of net
annual
savings
dependent on
uptake of
school
transport
Net annual
average
savings per
amalgamation
assuming
maximum
uptake of
school
transport
Range of per
pupil annual
saving
(dependent on
uptake of school
transport
53
126
€6,535,268
- €1,569,600
€4,965,668€5,358,068
€93,692€858 - €1,061
€101,096
31
74
€3,780,413
- €207,000
€3,573,413€3,728,663
€115,271 €969 - €1,011
€120,279
9
28
€1,490,053
- €10,800
€1,479,253
€164,361 €1,174 - €1,181
- 177 -
Single-site amalgamations
School transport costs
All single-site amalgamations involve potential additional school transport costs. In this
regard, a range of school transport cost scenarios has been calculated, ranging from a
high cost scenario to a low-cost scenario. The high-cost scenario assumes 100%
uptake of school transport by additional eligible pupils and the low-cost scenario
assumes 25% uptake. The high-cost scenario is unlikely to occur in practice for three
reasons. Firstly, not all pupils will qualify for school transport as they may still be within
3.2km of the amalgamated school. Secondly, not all that qualify will avail of the service.
Thirdly, a recent Value for Money Review of the School Transport Scheme (2011)
identified that there is some spare capacity in the school transport scheme which could
see some of the eligible pupils accommodated without additional costs. Nevertheless, it
was considered important to identify the range of costs and their impact on potential
savings. Based on the sampling exercise, the high cost scenario assumes that
approximately 30% of the pupils involved may be eligible for school transport as a
result of the amalgamation
Capital costs
Based on the information readily available within the Department, it appeared that
about half of all single-site amalgamations would necessitate capital investment in the
form of additional classroom(s). A site-visit would clearly be necessary in every case
to fully verify the position on the ground.
Savings
Table 6.X.3 in Appendix 6 outlines the estimated net annual savings from the singlesite amalgamations, on the basis of 100% uptake of school transport (high–cost
scenario). The level of net savings achieved depends mainly on the number of teaching
posts saved as a result of amalgamation. If the amalgamation does not save a teaching
post and incurs additional transport costs, it could in fact cost more than the current
arrangement. On the other hand, if the amalgamation saves two teaching posts and
incurs low additional transport costs, it achieves substantial net savings. Table 6.X.4 in
Appendix 6 outlines the savings on a per-pupil basis. Low or negative per-pupil
savings are achieved where no teaching post is saved as a result of amalgamation.
High per-pupil savings are achieved when there is a saving of one (or two) teaching
posts over a small number of pupils.
Conclusion on single-site amalgamations in the sample areas
The annual net saving across the 53 single-site amalgamations ranged from €93,692 €101,096 per amalgamation.
This range is dependent on the possible uptake of school transport, with the lower
figure representing maximum possible uptake. Generally, the single-site amalgamation
cases saved one teaching post. The average possible saving masks a considerable
range from negative savings to a substantial positive saving. At one extreme, a
negative saving could arise where two schools amalgamate and there is no teaching
post saved and additional expense is incurred as a result of pupils now becoming
eligible for school transport. At the other extreme an annual saving of approximately
€150,000 could arise in a case where three schools amalgamate onto one site and two
teaching posts are saved as a result and there were not significant additional school
transport costs. If single-site amalgamation were applied to the small schools in the
sample areas, it is estimated there would be an annual saving of in the range of €5m €5.4m, depending on uptake of school transport.
178
Two-site amalgamations
School transport costs
Two-site amalgamations did not result in significant additional pupils having to avail of
school transport. Overall, a maximum of 7% of pupils involved in 2-site amalgamations
may be entitled to avail of school transport as a result of the amalgamation. As in the
case of the one-site amalgamations, it is unlikely that all these pupils would in practice
be eligible for /avail of school transport. Nevertheless, the per-pupil savings figures are
calculated based on the highest and lowest possible school transport costs. In all
cases, the reason for the possible entitlement to school transport relates to the fact that
these particular 2-site amalgamations involved three schools. Effectively one of the
schools closed because it did not have the minimum required 20 pupils to be a standalone site and there could then emerge a requirement to transport the pupils to the
amalgamated school.
Capital costs
It appears that most two -site amalgamations did not necessitate capital investment in
the form of additional classroom(s).
Savings
The annual net saving for a two-site amalgamation ranged from €115,271 - €120,280
per amalgamation (Table 8.4). The range is dependent on the possible uptake of
school transport, with the lower figure representing maximum possible uptake. As
school transport was not a potential major additional cost, there is not a big difference in
the range of savings. The level of net savings achieved depends mainly on the number
of teaching posts saved as a result of amalgamation. If the amalgamation did not save
a teaching post and incurs additional transport costs, it could in fact cost more than the
current arrangement. On the other hand, if the amalgamation saves two teaching posts
it achieves substantial net savings. Table 6.X.5 in Appendix 6 gives some more detail
on the net savings for the two-site amalgamations.
Pupil distribution
The distribution of pupils in a two-site amalgamation can mean it is challenging to
distribute the staff equitably across the two sites. Refer to Table 6.X.6 in Appendix 6 in
this regard.
Conclusion on two-site amalgamations in the sample areas
Two-site amalgamation presented as a regular option for re-organisation in all twelve
sample areas. It did not result in significant additional school transport costs or
significant additional capital costs. In some cases, given the distribution of the pupils in
the schools involved, it was challenging to distribute staff equitably across the two sites
and achieve consistent class sizes in both sites. If two-site amalgamation was adopted
as a re-organisation option in the twelve sample areas, it would achieve annual savings
of €3.6m - €3.7m, dependent on uptake of school transport.
Three-site amalgamations
The three-site amalgamations yielded marginally more per-pupil savings than the twosite cases but, as they only had limited application in the sample areas, their net annual
savings were significantly less at approximately €1.5m. They did not appear to
necessitate capital investment and they incurred negligible potential additional school
transport costs. However, it was considered that as the management of a school over
three distinct sites by a single Principal did not have widespread application, it did not
present as a practical proposition in the exploration of options.
179
Overall conclusion on savings associated with amalgamations
Amalgamations yielded savings provided the amalgamation resulted in saving a
teaching post and there were no additional substantial school transport costs. Where an
amalgamation did not result in the saving of a post and also resulted in potential extra
school transport costs, it could result in increased expenditure.
8.6 Option C:
Federation – effect in the sample areas
Federation was identified as a possibility in ten (of the twelve) sample areas. In the
case of two sample areas (Areas 1 and 4), no federation possibility for the small
schools was identified because of:
•
•
insufficient pupil numbers (Sample area 1)
Geographic distances between the schools too great (Sample area 4).
Consequently, an amalgamation option was explored for the small schools in areas 1
and 4. The savings from this are reviewed in 8.6.2.
In the other ten sample areas 20 basic federations were identified. In some areas,
multiple combinations of federations are possible. As a result, in four sample areas
(Sample Areas 3, 6, 8 and 9), the same schools are selected for exploration in different
combinations of federations. The most common size of federation was 2-site.
Seventeen 2-site federations were identified, six 3-site federations were identified and
two 4-site federations were identified. In general, 4-site federations would not seem to
be an option.
The average number of pupils in a two-site federation was 80 pupils.
The average number of pupils in a three-site federation was 100 pupils.
As outlined in 8.1 Federations were explored in three different ways. The result is a
number of scenarios for each federation which shows a possible continuum of savings,
depending on the scenario. As there were many scenarios, more detail on the
exploration of federations is contained in Appendix 7.
The greatest level of savings came from the scenario of having a teaching Principal
and allocating the staff to the federated schools as though they were one school. The
least amount of savings came from the scenario of having an administrative Principal
and allocating the staff to each site in the federation as if it was an independent school.
8.6.1
Overview of savings from possible federations of the small schools in
the sample areas (Option C: Part 1)
Table 8.3 summarises the potential annual savings from the federations explored.
Savings associated with federations
Federations yielded savings with the exception of those federations where the
federation had an administrative Principal and staff were allocated to each site as if it
was an independent school. In those cases, the savings were negligible, or indeed, the
federations resulted in an additional cost.
Order in which savings were achieved:
The scale of the net savings per federation depended on the nature of the federation.
The key determinant was the staffing allocation, rather than the number of sites
involved.
180
Teaching Principal federations with staff allocated based on the overall number of
pupils yielded the most savings. The average annual saving for a 2-site federation was
in the range €145,300 to €154,000, €174,502 for a 3-site federation and €224,249 for
the 4-site federation. The per-pupil savings decreased in line with the number of sites
involved. In the case of the 2-site federation there was a range of per-pupil savings
dependent on uptake of school transport. This range went from €1,811 per pupil in the
case of high uptake of school transport to €1,923 per pupil in the case of low uptake.
School transport was not a significant factor in the case of 3-site or 4-site federations.
Their per-pupil savings respectively were €1,742 for a 3-site and €1,574 for the 4-site
federation.
Administrative Principal federations with staff allocated based on the overall number of
pupils yielded the next highest level of savings. The average annual saving for a 2-site
federation was in the range of c. €86,500 to €92,000 depending on uptake of school
transport. This range went from €1,030 per pupil in the case of high uptake of school
transport to €1,131 per pupil in the case of low uptake. School transport was not a
significant factor in the case of 3-site or 4-site federations. Their per-pupil savings
respectively were €1,176 and €920.
Teaching Principal federations with staff allocated to each site as if it was an
independent school yielded the next highest level of savings. The average annual
saving for a 2-site federation was in the range of c. €83,000 to €91,000 depending on
uptake of school transport. This range went from €1,015 per pupil in the case of high
uptake of school transport to €1,127 per pupil in the case of low uptake. School
transport was not a significant factor in the case of 3-site or 4-site federations. Their
per-pupil savings respectively were €274 and €279.
Administrative Principal federations with staff allocated to each site as if it was an
independent school yielded minimal savings. The average annual saving for a 2-site
federation was in the range of c. €15,725 to €24,740 depending on uptake of school
transport. This range went from €196 per pupil in the case of high uptake of school
transport to €308 per pupil in the case of low uptake. School transport was not a factor
in the case of 3-site or 4-site federations. Their per-pupil savings respectively were
negative savings of €285 and €114 respectively, i.e. they cost more than the current
arrangement. .
Conclusion on savings from federation in the sample areas (Option C: Part 1)
Federation of the small schools in the ten sample areas where it was possible
could achieve maximum annual savings in the range of €2.5m - €2.6m, dependent
on uptake of school transport. This is Part 1 of the Option C saving. The model
is based on a two-site federation model of a teaching Principal and the allocation
of staff based on the overall number of pupils in the federation.
In two sample areas, federation was not possible and amalgamation should be
explored for them. Any saving accrued would be Part 2 of the Option C saving.
181
Table 8.5
Option C: Part 1 - Federation – overview of potential savings from seventeen federations in ten sample areas
2 sites
1,364
€2,674,388
-€204,300 - €51,075
€2,470,088 to
€2,623,313
Range of net
average
annual
savings per
federation
(nearest ‘000)
€145,000 to
€154,000
3 sites
601
€1,047,012
€0
€1,047,012
€175,000
€1,742
4 sites
285
€448,497
€0
€448,497
€224,000
€1,574
2 sites
1,364
€1,588,596
-€204,300 - €51,075
€1,404,726 to
€1,542,629
€83,000 to
€91,000
€1,030to €1,131
3 sites
601
€164,958
€0
€164,958
27,000
€274
4 sites
285
€79,424
€0
€79,424
€40,000
€86,000 to
€95,000
€1,078 to €1,190
No of sites
Allocate staff based
on overall number of
pupils
Teaching
Principal
Allocate staff to
each site as if it was
an independent
school
Administrative
Principal
Allocate staff based
on overall number of
pupils
Allocate staff to
each site as if it was
an independent
school
No. of
pupils
overall
Gross annual
savings
Maximum possible
additional transport
costs @ €900 per
eligible pupil
Range of net
annual savings
Range of per
pupil annual
savings
€1,811 to €1,923
€279
2 sites
1,364
€1,674,552
-€204,300 - €51,075
€1,470,252 to
€1,623,477
3 sites
601
€706,560
€0
€706,560
€118,000
€1,176
4 sites
285
€262,176
€0
€262,176
€131,000
€920
2 sites
1,364
€471,633
-€204,300 - €51,075
€267,333 to
€420,558
€16,000 to
€25,000
€196 to €308
3 sites
601
-€171,150
€0
-€171,150
-€29,000
-€285
4 sites
285
-€32,612
€0
-€32,612
-€16,000
-€114
182
8.6.2
Option C (Part 2) Amalgamation of small schools in the sample areas
where a federation did not seem possible
Amalgamation was explored for the small schools in the sample areas where
federation was not a possibility. The estimated savings from these amalgamations
are outlined in Table 8.6.
Table 8.6 Option C (Part 2) Estimated savings from amalgamation of small schools
in the two sample areas where federation did not seem possible
Estimated annual saving
Description
Of
amalgamation
Sample
Ref
1C.1
1.C.2
4.C.1
4.C.2
4.C.3
Total
Average saving per amalgamation
Average per pupil saving
School 4 (10
pupils with
School C (71
pupils to form
an 81-pupil 3teacher school
Schools 1,2,3
and B to form a
100-pupil 4teacher school
School 3 (21
pupils) with
School C (125
pupils to form a
146-pupil 6teacher school
School 1(22
pupils) and
School A ( 265
pupils) to form
a 287-pupil 12teacher school
School 2(40
pupils) with a
42-pupil school
(just off the
map) to form an
82-pupil 3teacher school
High cost
scenario re
uptake of
school
transport
Low-cost
scenario re
uptake of
school
transport
€90,844
(€1,122 per
pupil)
€97,594
(1,205 per pupil)
€107,286
(€1,073 per
pupil)
€139,686
(€1,397 per
pupil)
€78,908
(€540 per pupil)
€93,083
(€638 per pupil)
€76,198
(€265 per pupil)
€91,048
(€317 per pupil)
€63,773
(€778 per pupil)
€90,773
(€1,107 per
pupil)
€417,009 for
596 pupils
€83,401
€699
€512,184 for
596 pupils
€102,436
€859
- 183 -
Conclusion regarding Option C (Part 2)
Amalgamation of the small schools in the two sample areas where federation did
not seem possible could achieve maximum annual savings in the range of €0.4m €0.5m, dependent on uptake of school transport. The model is based on singlesite amalgamation.
Other findings about federation from the sampling exercise
When the federation model was devised, the Committee did not limit the exploration
of the model by specifying a minimum number of schools to be in a federation.
Seventeen two-site federations were explored and in five of these cases, the
federations involved two schools only. The net savings from these five cases were
noticeably lower than in the other twelve cases which involved three schools. The
per-pupil savings in the five cases were generally lower also when compared with the
other twelve cases. This is clear from Table 8.7 which summarises the per-pupil
savings. The twelve cases of the two-site federations which involved three schools
essentially each incorporated the closure of one school. In seven of these cases, the
school was closed because it did not have the minimum 20 pupils to be a stand-alone
site for a federation. In the other five cases, the federation was simply explored on a
2-site and on a 3-site basis. It must be acknowledged that the savings calculated
from two-site federations involve some school closures.
Table 8.7
Two-site federations
Comparison of per-pupil savings from federations involving two
schools with federations involving three schools
Per-pupil saving in the
case of the five two-site
federations involving two
schools
1
2
3
4
Teaching Principal and
allocate staff
based on the overall
number of pupils
Teaching Principal and
allocate staff to
each site as if it was an
independent school
Administrative Principal
and allocate staff
based on the overall
number of pupils
Administrative Principal
and allocate staff
to each site as if it was an
independent school
Per-pupil saving in the case of
the twelve two-site federations
involving three schools
(assume 100% transport
eligibility)
€1,251
€2,004
€216
€1,291
€352
€1,322
- €410
€405
- 184 -
Conclusion
As a result of the exploration of options, it is clear that a school whose
enrolment is below 20 pupils and is within 8km of a similar school should not be
considered for federation; its only option for re-organisation is amalgamation.
Six three-site federations were identified and explored and the estimated savings were
the same for all six cases. The reason for this is that each of the six cases involved the
federation of three 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools. In all six cases, the
combined enrolment of the three schools lay between the band for appointing and
retaining four mainstream classroom teachers, namely between 86 pupils and 114
pupils. None of the federations involved additional transport costs. The resources
allocated to all of the schools in the federations were the same at the outset and the
resources they would receive in the event of federation were the same. Hence, the net
savings worked out the same for each case.
Challenge of equitable allocation of teaching resources in federations based on
pupil distribution
The sampling showed that it can be generally problematic to distribute the
mainstream classroom teachers to which a federation is entitled so that there are
reasonable class sizes per mainstream classroom teacher at each location. For
example, in the case of Federation 2.A.1, there are a total of 88 pupils currently in
three locations, distributed on the basis of 21, 31 and 36 pupils. A school of 88 pupils
would be entitled to 4 mainstream classroom teachers. Distributing the four teachers
across the three sites would mean that the 31-pupil site only has one teacher. In
order to achieve a somewhat even distribution of teaching staff, the 21-pupil unit
would have to combine with the 31-pupil unit to form a 52-pupil unit which would be
allocated two mainstream classroom teachers. Another example is Federation 5.A.1
consisting of 92 pupils in three locations, on the basis of 22, 39 and 31 pupils. A
school of 92 pupils would be entitled to 4 mainstream classroom teachers. No matter
how the school is organised (on a 2-site or 3-site basis), it is impossible to achieve
equitable staff allocation given current pupil distribution.
Capital investment required for federations
The sampling exercise showed that generally federations would not require
substantial capital investment. In most cases, there would be sufficient classroom
accommodation for the identified federations.
Additional transport costs required for federations
The sampling exercise showed that currently 8% of pupils in the small schools
sampled availed of the school transport service. Under a federation option, potential
additional transport costs would arise only in the case of 2-site federations of three
schools. These are effectively those cases where a school closes because it does not
have the minimum 20 pupils to be a stand-alone site for a federated school. The cost
of additional school transport has been factored into the sampling exercise. The
sampling exercise showed that up to an additional 17% of pupils overall involved in 2site federations may need to avail of school transport. In the case of 3-site and 4-site
federations, no additional school transport costs arise.
- 185 -
Overall conclusion on savings associated with federations
Where federation was possible in the sample areas, the 2-site option was always a possibility.
A 3-site/4-site federation was not always a regular possibility. For this reason, the Committee
chose the 2-site federation as the general basis for identifying savings from the federation
option. Furthermore, the Committee chose the option of a teaching Principal and the
allocation of staff based on the overall number of pupils because this offered the maximum
level of savings. However, this maximum level of saving assumes that a teaching principal is
managing a school across two sites. In addition, the maximum level of savings includes the
cases of the twelve federations which involved three schools. These cases effectively
boosted the savings. In adopting federation as a model generally, the reality would be that a
school with under 20 pupils could not federate and would have to amalgamate.
Federation was a possibility in respect of 46 of the 53 small schools in the twelve sample
areas. These sample areas all have a high proportion of small schools so it could be
reasonably expected that federation would be a regular possibility in them. For the seven
small schools for which federation was not a possibility, amalgamation was explored. . The
maximum annual savings achievable from federation in respect of the 46 small schools were
in the range of €2.5m - €2.6m (Option C , Part 1) and from amalgamation in respect of the 7
small schools were €0.4m - €0.5m (Option C: Part 2) . The range of savings in both cases
depends on uptake of school transport. Allowing for this, the total estimated annual savings
range from €2.9m to €3.1m.
The sampling exercise showed that equitable distribution of teaching resources across the
sites of a federation is a major practical challenge in many instances. In terms of capital
investment, the sampling exercise showed that federation did not appear to require much
capital investment and also it did not incur much additional cost in terms of school transport.
8.9 Estimated national annual savings from re-organisation
The sampling process yielded an indicative level of annual savings in respect of the
twelve sample areas for each of the three re-organisation options identified by the
Committee.
The sampling exercise was done on the assumption that the phased 2012 budget
measures will be fully implemented as of 2014. These measures relate to both the
phased staffing schedule changes and the phased reductions in the payments of
capitation and ancillary grant services. Therefore, any potential savings identified here
are in addition to the full scale of any savings achieved through the measures
contained in Budget 2012. By 2014 when the changes will be fully implemented, the
pupil threshold for the appointment of a third mainstream classroom teacher will be 56
pupils. In terms of articulating savings therefore, the Committee considered that as
teacher numbers are the key cost driver in primary school costs, it is appropriate to
estimate savings in respect of schools up to 55 pupils (inclusive) in order to include all
1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools post- 2014. The most recent school
rd
enrolment data (published on 3 September 2012) shows that there were 23,382 pupils
in 690 primary schools with an enrolment of 55 pupils or less in 2011/12 (Table 7.9) . If
these schools maintain their 2011/12 enrolment level, they will be either 1- or 2mainstream classroom teacher schools by 2014. The Department’s GIS shows that in
case of some 540 of these schools (78% of the total of 690) there was a school of
similar type within 8km. These 540 small schools would have an estimated 18,238
- 186 -
pupils by 2014 (78% of 23,382 pupils). These 540 schools are essentially the focus of
the re-organisation options.
Section 7.4 identified that the cost premium for 1- and 2-mainstream classroom
teacher schools will be almost €37m in 2014. The intention behind the re-organisation
options is to reduce this premium, while maintaining educational quality for the pupils
and reasonable travel distances
Using the foregoing information and the savings determined in the sampling exercises,
following is an estimation of the national savings that could be achieved by applying
each of the three re-organisation options, namely:
Option A.
Increase the minimum viability threshold
Option B.
Amalgamation
Option C.
Federation
8.9.1
Option A:
national savings
Increase the minimum viability threshold estimated
Table 8.8 below sets out the estimated national annual savings from adopting a
12-pupil and 20-pupil minimum viability threshold (using the per-pupil savings
outlined in Table 8.3).
A 56-pupil threshold
(Amalgamation).
Table 8.8
is
dealt
with
under
re-organisation
Option
B
Option A: Estimated annual savings from increasing the
minimum viability threshold for primary schools
A
B
C
New
minimum
pupil
threshold
Estimated
no of
schools
potentially
impacted
(based on
2011/12)
Enrolment
levels
Estimated
no of
schools
in Column
B
within
8km of a
similar
school
Estimated
pupils in
schools
from
column C
83
D
E
84
12
pupils
8
3
23
20
pupils
94
69
1,035
85
Estimated
per-pupil
saving
(from
Table 8.3)
F
Total estimated
pupils that
would be
involved in
amalgamations
based on the
sampling
exercise
G
Total
estimated
national
annual
savings
(D * E)
€696 to
€782
225
€ 0.16m
€0.18m
€1,040
to
€1,191
4,485
€4.66m
€5.34m
83
The 2011/12 shows 13 schools with less than 12 pupils but on 31/8/12 four of them closed
and one amalgamated. Of the eight schools remaining, four of them are the only school on
an off-shore island and one school is more than 8km from the nearest school of the same
type.
84
This is the actual number of pupils from the 2011/12 published enrolment data
85
This is the mean number of pupils in a 1-teacher school (15 pupils) multiplied by 69.
- 187 -
12 pupil threshold
Increasing the threshold to 12 pupils for all schools that are within 8km of a
school of the same type would save at most €0.18m annually. This is calculated
as follows: st
As of 1 September 2012, there were eight schools in existence whose 2011/12
enrolment was under 12 pupils. Four of these are island schools where the
school is the only one on the island and one school is more than 8km away from
a similar school. On this basis, it is estimated that a 12-pupil threshold would
impact on a maximum of 3 schools. The exploration of the sample areas showed
that in the case of amalgamations to achieve a 12-pupil threshold, there was an
average number of 75 pupils per amalgamation. Using this as a guide, three
amalgamations with an average of 75 pupils involved in each amalgamation
results in an estimated 225 pupils who would be involved in amalgamations to
achieve a 12-pupil threshold.
20-pupil threshold
Increasing the threshold to 20 pupils would save an estimated €4.6m - €5.3m
nationally annually, depending on the uptake of school transport. The basis for
this calculation is as follows: The exploration of the sample areas showed that in the case of amalgamations
to achieve a 20-pupil threshold, there 65 pupils on average per amalgamation.
Based on the 2011/12 enrolment figures, it is estimated that adoption of a 20pupil threshold would impact on sixty nine schools with an enrolment below 20
pupils and that are within 8km of a school of the same type. Sixty nine
amalgamations each involving an average of 65 pupils would mean involvement
of a total of 4,485 pupils in the amalgamations to achieve a 20-pupil threshold.
The estimated annual savings are achieved from all the schools involved in the
amalgamations (those of fewer than 20 pupils) and the amalgamation partners of
more than 20 pupils. Given the average size of the amalgamations identified in
the sample areas in order to achieve a 20-pupil threshold, the likelihood in most
cases is that the amalgamations consist mainly of 1- and 2-mainstream
classroom teacher schools and that the resultant school from the amalgamation
could still be a 2-mainstream classroom teacher school. A saving of in the region
of €5m does not represent a significant reduction in the annual premium of almost
€37m established for 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools in Chapter
7
Any universal adoption of a revised minimum viability threshold would have a
differential impact on the seven groups of small schools in terms of the proportion
of each group that is more than 8km away from a similar school. This is evident in
Table 6.6
8.9.2
Option B:
Amalgamation estimated national savings
Amalgamation involves small schools and larger schools of the same type.
It
was possible to explore an amalgamation for all small schools in the sample
areas. Amalgamation would seem to be a possibility for all 540 1- and 2mainstream classroom teacher schools which are within 8km of another school
of the same type.
Three basic amalgamation options were explored i.e. amalgamation onto a
single site, onto split two-site scenario and a split three-site scenario. In the
exploration of options in the sample areas, the level of per-pupil saving
- 188 -
increased as the number of sites increased. The main reason for this is
additional school transport costs minimised as the number of sites increases. In
the exploration, a multi-site amalgamation did not always appear to be a
practical proposition whereas in all instances a single-site amalgamation did
appear to be a practical proposition. Therefore, even though the per-pupil
saving for a single-site amalgamation was lower than in the multi-site case, the
Committee took the view that because it had the widest application, single-site
amalgamation should be generally used to identify potential savings. In doing
this, it was also recognised that the single-site amalgamation would be more
likely to incur ongoing costs resulting from increased uptake of school transport
and once-off capital costs necessitated by school extensions. In regard to
school transport, a range of cost scenarios were adopted from a possible highcost scenario of full uptake of school transport by pupils in a small school
amalgamating to a neighbouring school to a low-cost scenario. The high-cost
scenario assumes 100% uptake and the low cost scenario assumes 25%
uptake.
Table 8.9 outlines the estimated overall potential savings for single-site
amalgamations of 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools post-2014,
with a range of cost scenarios in regard to uptake of school transport ranging
from a high cost scenario where 100% of potential additional eligible pupils take
up school transport to a low-cost scenario where 25% of potential additional
eligible pupils take up school transport.
It is important to note that in exploring the savings arising from amalgamation,
the annual per pupil savings are an average saving over all the pupils in the
amalgamated school. In this regard, it is useful to identify the extent to which the
three amalgamation scenarios involve pupils from schools of different sizes.
Based on the sampling exercise conducted, an estimate is indicated for the total
number of pupils according to their size of school. Columns A, B and C estimate
the pupil numbers involved according to teacher-size of school and Column D
gives the total estimated number.
- 189 -
Table 8.9:
Option B: Overview of estimated national annual savings
Single-site amalgamation of the 540 small schools which are within 8km of a similar
school
Estimated pupils in the amalgamations according to
mainstream classroom teacher size of school
Pupils from
1-teacher &
2-teacher
schools
A
18,238
Pupils from
3-teacher &
4-teacher
schools
B
11,670
Pupils
from
schools of
5-teachers
or more
C
6,568
Total
estimated
pupils
School
transport
uptake
D
(A+B+C)
Average
potential
per pupil
annual
saving
E
Estimated
gross
potential
annual
saving
D*E
100%
€858
€31.3m
75%
€926
€33.8m
50%
€994
€36.3m
25%
€1,061
€38.7m
36,476
Table 8.9 shows that the annual savings from Option B (Amalgamation) range from €31.3 to
€38.7 m, dependent on the uptake of school transport.
Capital estimate
Achievement of a single-site amalgamation could, in many cases, necessitate some capital
expenditure on a once-off basis. In a small number of cases, an amalgamation could be
achieved without any capital expenditure and in a further small number of cases, it could
happen that an entirely new school building would be the most cost-effective solution. The
sampling exercise showed that from a desk assessment, half of the single-site
amalgamations explored would necessitate capital investment in the form of additional
classrooms. A site-visit would be necessary in every case to fully verify the position on the
ground.
It is estimated that amalgamation of all 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools which
are located within an 8km distance another school of the same ethos and medium of
instruction could necessitate the provision of in excess of 400 additional classrooms and
possibly construction of ten new schools. The associated capital costs would depend on a
range of factors such as site suitability, condition of existing buildings and the ease with which
the required additional accommodation can be provided on a cost-effective basis. Taking
account of these factors, it is estimated that the capital costs to achieve the required
amalgamations could range from approximately €50m to €75m.
Overall, if amalgamation was adopted as a sole re-organisation option, it is estimated that it
could result in a reduction of about 440 schools nationally.
- 190 -
8.9.3 Option C:
Federation estimated national savings
Re-organisation through federation of small schools is possible in respect of only some small
schools, namely those situated close to another similar small school. The remainder of the
small schools would have to be re-organised through amalgamation.
Estimation of the numbers of schools that could federate (Part 1)
The question arises as to how many of the 540 small schools can be federated? Further
analysis shows in the case of about 70 of the 540 schools that their enrolment is below 20
pupils. Consequently they could not be a stand-alone site for a federated school and therefore
their only option would be to close and amalgamate on a single-site basis with a neighbouring
similar school. That leaves a total of 470 small schools (540 – 70). How many of the 470
small schools could federate? A reasonable indication of where a federation would be
possible for these 470 schools is those schools where the enrolment of the similar
neighbouring school is between 20 and 55 pupils (inclusive), The GIS indicates this would
likely arise in the case of some 180 of the 470 schools. There would be an estimated 6,660
pupils involved (calculated by multiplying 180 by the mean number of pupils in a 2mainstream classroom teacher school - Table 7.4)
Estimation of the numbers of schools that could not federate so would have to amalgamate
(Part 2)
The remaining 290 small schools (470 – 180) would have to amalgamate with the nearest
similar school within 8km, which is likely to be a school of 56 pupils or more. In addition, the
70 small schools whose enrolment was less than 20 pupils would also have to amalgamate
with a similar neighbouring school.
Therefore, if federation was adopted as a re-organisation option, where possible, following
would be the outcome in terms of re-organisation of the 540 small schools:
Part 1:
Federate 180 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools (estimated 6,660 pupils
involved). Savings in Table 8.10
Part 2:
Amalgamate 360 schools (70 1-mainstream classroom teacher and 290 2mainstream classroom teacher) with estimated 12,167 pupils as follows (Table
8.11):
Amalgamate 70 1-mainstream classroom teacher schools with nearest similar
school (1,437 pupils in these schools)
Amalgamate 290 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools with nearest similar
86
school (estimated 10,730 pupils in these schools).
Table 8.12 summarises the savings from Tables 8.10 and 8.11
86
The mean number of pupils in a 2-teacher school is 37 pupils (Table 7.4). Multiplying 37 by
290 yields an estimated 10,730 pupils.
- 191 -
Table 8.10
Option C: Part 1
Two-site federation for 180 schools
Overview of estimated national annual savings
1
2
3
4
Teaching Principal and allocate staff
Based on the overall number of pupils
Teaching Principal and allocate staff to
each site as if it was an independent
school
Administrative Principal and allocate
staff Based on the overall number of
pupils
Administrative Principal and allocate
staff to each site as if it was an
independent school
Table 8.11
Per-pupil saving
(sourced from Table
8.6)
Estimated
saving
for 6,660 pupils
€1,251
€8.3m
€216
€1.4m
€352
€2.3m
- €410
-€2.7m
Option C : Part 2
Single-site amalgamation for the 360 schools that could not federate–
overview of estimated national annual savings
Estimated pupils in the amalgamations according to
mainstream classroom teacher size of school
Pupils
Pupils from
Pupils from
from
1-teacher &
3-teacher &
Total
schools of
estimated
2-teacher
4-teacher
4-teachers
schools
schools
pupils
or more
(50% of
(32% of
(18% of
total)
total)
total)
D
A
B
C
(A+B+C)
12,167
7,787
4,380
School
transport
uptake
Average
potential
per pupil
annual
saving
E
Estimated
gross
potential
annual
saving
D*E
100%
€858
€20.9m
75%
€926
€22.5m
50%
€994
€24.2m
25%
€1,061
€25.8m
24,334
- 192 -
Table 8.12
Option C: Parts 1 & 2
Estimated national annual savings
Transport
Uptake
Estimated annual
saving
€m
Part 1
Part 2
Federation of 180 schools
Amalgamation of 360
schools
Not
applicable
€8.3m
100%
€20.9m
75%
€22.5m
50%
€24.2m
25%
€25.8m
In conclusion, federation can only be applied to some of the small schools and thus the
remainder would have to re-organise through amalgamation. Therefore, the savings are
estimated in two parts, as follows:
Part 1:
The maximum estimated annual savings from federating the small schools that
could be federated (estimated at 180 schools) is €8.3m
Part 2:
The estimated annual savings from amalgamating the small schools that could
not be federated range from €20.9m to €25.8. This range is dependent on
uptake of school transport.
Adding Part 1 to Part 2 gives a total estimated annual saving ranging from €29.2m to €34.1m,
depending on uptake of school transport.
Capital estimate
The sampling exercise showed that in general federations could be achieved without capital
investment. Therefore, Part 1 does not require capital investment.
In regard to Part 2, achievement of a single-site amalgamation could, in many cases,
necessitate some capital expenditure on a once-off basis. In a small number of cases, an
amalgamation could be achieved without any capital expenditure and in a further small
number of cases, it could happen that an entirely new school building would be the most cost-
- 193 -
effective solution. The sampling exercise showed that from a desk assessment, half of the
single-site amalgamations explored would necessitate capital investment in the form of
additional classrooms. A site-visit would be necessary in every case to fully verify the position
on the ground.
It is estimated that amalgamation of 360 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools
which are located within an 8km distance another school of the same ethos and medium of
instruction could necessitate the provision of in the region of 270 additional classrooms and
possibly construction of five new schools. The associated capital costs would depend on a
range of factors such as site suitability, condition of existing buildings and the ease with which
the required additional accommodation can be provided on a cost-effective basis. Taking
account of these factors, it is estimated that the capital costs to achieve the required
amalgamations could range from approximately €38m to €56m.
Overall, if federation/amalgamation was adopted as a re-organisation option, it is estimated
that it could result in a reduction of about 450 schools nationally.
Overall conclusion regarding the savings potential for the three re-organisation
options
Option A – increasing the minimum viability threshold for continued recognition:
Increasing the minimum threshold to 12 pupils would save an estimated €0.2m annually
Increasing the minimum threshold to 20 pupils would save an estimated €5m annually
Option B - Amalgamation:
Amalgamation of 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools that are within 8km of a
similar school would save between €31m and €39m per annum, dependent on uptake of
school transport.
The estimated once-off capital costs range from €50m - €75m.
Option C – Federation (where possible) plus Amalgamation (where Federation not
possible):
Federation is estimated to be a possibility for about 180 of the 540 small schools which are
within 8km of a similar school. This would save €8.3m (Option C: Part 1). The remaining
360 small schools would have to amalgamate and, depending on uptake of school transport,
the saving from this would be between €20.2m to €25.0m (Option C: Part 2). Therefore, the
estimated total overall annual savings from Option C range from €28.5m to €33.5m per
annum dependent on uptake of school transport.
The estimated once-off capital costs range from €38m - €56m.
- 194 -
8.10 Findings
Chapter 8 explores re-organisation options for an estimated 540 1- and 2-mainstream
classroom teacher schools that will be within 8km of a similar school in 2014. Three reorganisation options are identified by the Committee, namely increase to the minimum
viability threshold, amalgamation and federation. In order to analyse the possible effect of the
options and to estimate savings involved, a sampling exercise is undertaken in regard to
twelve sample areas with relatively high concentrations of small schools. In response to each
of the three re-organisation options, a list of possible alternatives is identified for exploration in
each of the sample areas. All the exploration of options was done on the basis of the costing
model devised in Chapter 7 which is based on 2014 costs. The sampling exercise resulted in
the identification of implementation issues and also yielded possible savings for each of the
options. These savings were then extrapolated to estimate the savings that may apply on a
national basis for each of the options. Following were the findings:
Option A: Increasing the minimum viability threshold for continued recognition
Option A was examined in the context of three thresholds, namely 12 pupils, 20 pupils and 50
pupils. In exploring the effects of increasing the minimum viability threshold, the Committee
took the view that at each increased threshold, schools impacted by the new threshold would
rationally seek to amalgamate with a similar neighbouring school(s) in order to achieve the
new threshold. This approach was adopted in exploring this option in the sample area
studies. Based on the sampling exercise, the conclusion is that on a national basis, a 12pupil minimum threshold would save under €0.2m annually and a 20-pupil minimum threshold
would save in the region of €5m annually. In light of the Budget 2012 changes to the Staffing
Schedule, it was considered that national savings should be identified in respect of a 56-pupil
threshold (rather than a 50-pupil threshold) and these are addressed in Option B.
The sampling exercise showed that each amalgamation would have to be examined to
ensure that it made financial sense.
Option B: Amalgamation
Option B (Amalgamation) can involve schools of any size. Two different bases of
amalgamation were explored, namely single-site and split-site amalgamations. Amalgamation
was initially identified for exploration on the basis that the minimum size of school resulting
from amalgamation would be 50 pupils. In light of the Budget 2012 change to the staffing of
small schools, the Committee believe that the minimum size should be at least 56 pupils (a 3mainstream classroom teacher school). Single-site amalgamations proved to be an option in
all cases explored whereas split-site amalgamations did not prove a possibility in all
instances. For this reason, the Committee chose the single-site amalgamation option as the
general basis for identifying savings from the amalgamation option. In regard to school
transport, a range of cost scenarios were adopted. The range is from a possible high-cost
scenario of uptake of school transport by pupils in a small school amalgamating to a
neighbouring school to a low-cost scenario. The high-cost scenario assumes 100% uptake
and the low cost scenario assumes 25% uptake. Based on the sampling exercise, the
conclusion is that on a national basis, single-site amalgamation of all 1- and 2-mainstream
classroom teacher schools that are within 8km of a similar school would achieve savings in
the range of €31.3m and €38.7m, dependent on uptake of school transport.
In regard to split-site amalgamations, the sampling exercise showed that, dependent on the
spread of pupil numbers between locations, a single staffing allocation may give rise to
- 195 -
differing class sizes between locations. Depending on the balance of numbers, it may not be
possible to avoid disproportionate class size arrangements in specific circumstances.
For all amalgamation scenarios (single-site and split-site) within the overall average savings
figures, there was a large range of savings which ranged from negative savings to substantial
positive savings. Positive savings arise where staffing efficiencies are achieved. The
negative savings arise where the amalgamation does not result in any staff saving and
possibly incurs additional cost in the form of school transport. Every amalgamation would
have to be examined to ensure that it made financial sense.
The estimated once-off capital costs range from €50m - €75m.
Option C: Federation
Option C (Federation) is a form of split-site amalgamation intended for small schools only.
Generally, if federation was adopted as a re-organisation option where possible, any small
school that did not have a ready federation option available to it but was within 8km of a
similar school (s) would have to seek to amalgamate with a similar school(s).
Federation was explored in three different ways, namely according to differing number of
sites, according to the appointment of staff based on either the combined enrolment of all the
sites or allocating staff to each site in the federated school and according to appointing an
administrative Principal over the Federation. It was found that the key variables were the
staffing variables and that the number of sites did not make a major difference to overall
savings. The most common form of federation identified was a two-site federation with an
average of 80 pupils and the Committee chose this as a basis for identifying federation
savings. In addition, the sampling showed that the highest level of savings was achieved in
federations involving a teaching Principal with the staff allocated based on the overall number
of pupils and consequently the Committee chose this as the general basis for identifying
savings from federation. Based on the sampling exercise, the conclusion is that on a national
basis, federation would seem to be an option for about 180 (of the 540) schools and the
estimated national savings would be €8.3m (Part1), The remaining 360 schools would have to
re-organise through amalgamation and the estimated savings range from €20.9m to €25.8m
(Part 2), dependent on uptake of school transport. Combining the two parts yields estimated
annual savings of €29.2m to €34.1m, dependent on uptake of school transport.
The sampling showed that it can be generally problematic to distribute the mainstream
classroom teachers to which a federation is entitled so that there are reasonable class sizes
per mainstream classroom teacher at each location. It also showed that, in general,
federations did not appear to require additional capital expenditure.
- 196 -
Chapter 9
Conclusion and Recommendations
Introduction
The potential reorganisation of small school provision raises complex and challenging issues.
The Committee recognises that there is much sensitivity involved. The Committee has noted
the many strong views expressed on behalf of small schools and their communities in the
formal consultation submissions as outlined in Chapter 5. A consideration arising is whether
the retention of small schools can be justified by reference to wider community-linked
functions associated with them. However, the core function of a school is to provide quality
education for the pupils it serves. The main consideration in this context is how the
organisation of the school system can most effectively support maximum benefit from the
utilisation of overall available educational resources.
This is all the more important in a time of combined pressures of strong demographic growth
and overall public funding constraints The Committee is conscious that a balance is required
between meeting the objective of providing for primary school provision so that children of
primary school age are enabled to attend a local school within a reasonable travel distance
and also promoting the efficient use of limited resources. In the period 2000 – 2011 there was
an increase in pupil enrolment in larger schools (of over 100 pupils) that was almost seven
times the reduction in pupil enrolment in an equivalent number of smaller schools (of under
100 pupils). The imbalance between the increase/decrease is a clear indication that the
current system of organisation needs adjustment in order to better utilise limited resources.
From examining small school provision and exploring reorganisation possibilities as set out in
Chapter 8, the Committee considers that there is considerable scope for reorganisation that
includes reasonable pupil travel times and respects parental choice in school ethos and
language of instruction. Nevertheless, the Committee acknowledges the impact that
implementation of some of the recommendations of this report will have on some
communities and is conscious of the difficulties of implementing many of the
recommendations.
Ireland has a high proportion of primary schools relative to its population and has a high
proportion of small primary schools, with approximately one fifth of primary schools having an
enrolment of less than 50 pupils. In Chapter 3 there was an examination of the reasons for
the relatively high proportion of small schools, their location and their composition in seven
main groups as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Type of small school
No of schools
Percentage of total of
small schools
Catholic,
English-medium,
nonGaeltacht
Church of Ireland
Gaeltacht
Island
Presbyterian
Catholic, Irish medium, non Gaeltacht
Multi-denominational
Total
423 schools
72%
74 schools
51 schools
13 schools
9 schools
7 schools
5 schools
582 schools
12%
8%
2%
1%
1%
< 1%
100%
- 197 -
Chapter 6 further examined each of the seven groups and analysed them in terms of the
sizes of schools and proximity. Half of all schools are within 5km of another school of the
same type. This shows clearly that there is scope for re-organisation of provision. Chapter 5
analysed the question of the community impact of small schools and reviewed practice in
other jurisdictions. Chapter 7 identifies the level and trend of costs and staffing resources
associated with school size. It identifies that the biggest component of cost is the cost of
human resources. It finds that 1-, 2- and 3--teacher schools will continue to be overly
advantaged in terms of the allocation of teaching resources relative to larger schools, even
following full implementation of the Budget 2012 provisions. The terms of reference for the
VFM review defined small schools as those with under 50 pupils. At the commencement of
the Review, this embraced all 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools and a small
number of 3-teacher schools. With the adjustment to the primary school staffing schedule in
2012, a 50 pupil threshold will embrace all 1- and most 2-mainstream classroom teacher
schools by 2014. In light of this, the recommendations of the Review are articulated in terms
of teacher size of school, rather than pupil size, and in this context focus particularly on 1- and
2-mainstream classroom teacher schools. This reflects the phased Budget adjustment and
the exploration of options in a number of sample areas in Chapter 8 was carried out on this
basis. Chapter 8 finds that resources would be used more efficiently if school provision was
re-organised to reduce the numbers of 1 and 2-mainstream classroom teacher schools (and
to a lesser extent 3-mainstream classroom teacher schools). This Chapter contains
recommendations based on the analysis of the previous chapters. Conclusions then follow.
Recommendations
In light of the considerations and analysis set out, and to ensure greater fairness and equity
the distribution of resources to all schools, the Committee is of the view that schools below a
certain size should not be maintained as independent school entities in cases where there are
other schools within 8 km serving the same community.
However, taking account of the scale and spread of physical infrastructure involved, the
Committee recognises that there could be practical advantages in some circumstances in
retaining existing small school premises where this proves feasible in terms of staff
distribution. In these circumstances small schools, while potentially retaining a separate
physical identity, should be amalgamated into a single larger school entity and should operate
as part of that larger single school.
In these circumstances, subject to certain requirements, small schools could retain a
presence in communities but could operate as part of a larger split-site, amalgamated or
federated, single school entity. In this way, the cost premium associated with sustaining
independent small schools would be reduced but the communities concerned would have
continuing access to primary school provision in existing locations. Aside from protecting the
value of prior investments in school buildings this can offer retention of long-standing
community identification with the presence of particular school facilities, recognising the
strong views set out in many submissions that this should be the case. On the other hand, a
potential difficulty with a split-site amalgamation is that where a school is organised over more
than one site, depending on the spread of pupil numbers, a single staffing allocation may give
rise to differing class sizes between locations. Depending on the balance of numbers, it may
not be possible to avoid disproportionate class size arrangements in specific circumstances.
In those circumstances it would not be possible to adhere to any concept of imposing a
maximum class size in a particular location without resulting in a reduction of the level of
savings achieved. It must also be acknowledged that there would be practical issues involved
with managing a school across multiple sites. Overall, on balance because single-site
amalgamation proved a universal possibility in the sampling (whereas split-site was not) and
because equitable distribution of staffing resources is easier to achieve in one location, the
Committee chose the single-site amalgamation option as the general basis for identifying
minimum annual savings from the amalgamation option. However, where split-site
- 198 -
amalgamation could take place to the satisfaction of the parties involved, it would represent
an additional bonus in terms of savings and the Committee would favour it.
In all its deliberations, the Committee has respected that there are features unique to each of
the seven Groups of small school identified. It has not adopted any re-organisation proposals
which would require schools to amalgamate with other schools outside their own identified
group.
In circumstances where a school building is vacated and is no longer required for an
educational purpose, the Committee considers that it is a matter for the owner of the school
building to decide on how the building can continue to be used for the benefit of the
community.
The Committee recognises that it is important that school communities are given an
opportunity to consider the most appropriate overall organisation of provision for their
community, given the fact that there could be multiple options to be considered for some
schools/communities. However, the Committee also considers that early progress is
achievable in relation to the implementation of the recommendations below.
9.1
Policy on preferred minimum school size
The Committee recommends that the Department should articulate a policy on a
preferred minimum size of existing schools. The Committee suggests that this would
be a minimum of four classroom teachers, namely the point at which cost per pupil
gets reasonably close to that of larger schools. This minimum is organisationally more
efficient, as it allow for the allocation of two class groups per teacher, it represents
much better value for money and yet it is still a relatively small school.
Recommendation 1:
It is recommended that the Department articulate a policy on the optimum
minimum size for existing schools in order to provide a strategic policy
direction for stakeholders. It would also help inform the implementation of
the re-organisation proposals contained in the recommendations of the VFM
Review.
The Committee recommends that any re-organisation should preferably
achieve a minimum primary school size of that required for the appointment
of a minimum of four mainstream classroom teachers (i.e. Principal plus
three mainstream classroom teachers). This school size confers significant
organisational and curriculum delivery advantages and is also a costeffective school size in the use of scarce resources.
It is noted that, with effect from 2014, the enrolment threshold for the
appointment and retention of four mainstream classroom teachers will be 86
pupils.
- 199 -
9.2 Reorganise small school provision
The Committee is of the view that the proximity of a small school to another school
serving the same community should be central to considering issues of sustainability,
subject to these schools having a minimum number of pupils. Chapter 8 sets out the
reorganisation options that were examined by the Committee and explores the impact
of implementation of the reorganisation options on small schools in a number of
sample areas and identifies estimated national savings from implementation. Based
on the sampling undertaken, the conclusion of the Committee is that there is
considerable scope for re-organisation of provision of small schools.
An analysis of the average number of pupils for each class teacher in primary schools
shows that 1-, 2- and 3- mainstream classroom teacher schools continue to be overly
advantaged in terms of the allocation of teaching resources among schools even
following full implementation of the Budget 2012 provisions.
The Committee considers that schools of 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teachers
which are located within 8km of another school(s) serving the same community are
not sustainable as separate independent entities. Overall, if current enrolment
patterns continue into 2014, 78% of all 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher
primary schools will be within 8km (5 miles) of another school of the same type. This
constitutes an estimated 540 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher primary
schools that are in close proximity to a similar school.
The Committee recognises that there is a case for 1- and 2-teacher schools in
isolated areas to be retained (where communities wish to retain such schools), for
example, in the case of island schools where the school is the only school on that
island.
The 540 schools in close proximity can be sub-divided into two groups, as follows:
•
•
24 schools in very close proximity (under 2km of a similar school )
516 schools in close proximity (2km to 8km)
Recommendations 2 and 3 relate to these schools:
Small schools within 2km distance of nearest similar school:
The analysis identified an estimated twenty-four schools, which if they maintain their
2011/12 enrolment level, will be 1- or 2-teacher schools in 2014 and are located
within 2km of another school serving the same community. In eight instances, the
schools share the same campus. Eight of the twenty-four schools are single gender.
The Committee recommends that any school of 1-teacher or 2-teachers located
within 2km of another school serving the same community should close and be
subsumed into the neighbouring school.
These closures/amalgamations may take place at the end of the 2013/14 school year
but must have taken place by the end of the 2014/15 school year.
Where schools fail to amalgamate by the specified date, the Minister for Education
and Skills may withdraw recognition from the schools.
- 200 -
Recommendation 2
It is recommended that all 1- and 2-mainstream classroom teacher primary
schools located within 2km (1.2 miles) of another primary school of the
same ethos and medium of instruction should close or amalgamate where
appropriate with a neighbouring school, in order to preferably achieve the
enrolment threshold for at least 4 mainstream classroom teachers. The
Department should identify these schools and contact them with a view to
making immediate re-organisation arrangements.
Small schools located more than 2km but less than 8km from nearest similar
school:
The analysis identified an estimated 516 schools, that if they maintain their 2011/12
enrolment level into 2014, will be 1-teacher/2-teacher schools and are located
between 2km and 8km of another school serving the same community.
These schools should seek to re-organise as follows:
.
1. Amalgamate/Federate with a neighbouring school
Amalgamation can take place on a same-site or on a split-site basis, provided
there is a minimum of 20 pupils on each site.
Amalgamation is appropriate for a small school whose nearest school is a
larger school. In such a case, the small school would be subsumed into the
larger school, with the small school becoming part of the larger school. The
teachers and pupils of the former small school would be form part of the
enrolment and teaching staff of the larger school but the current governance
arrangements for the larger school would remain. The larger school would
retain its current roll number and current Board of Management. The staffing
schedule would determine the teachers to be allocated to the school. This
arrangement may involve a single site, that is, at the site of the larger school or
may involve a split-site arrangement, where a separate campus is retained at
the site of the small school
In general, the partner school for the purposes of amalgamation will be the
nearest school of the same medium of instruction/denomination. The exception
to this rule is where the small school in question decides to link with a different
school or schools (and secures the agreement of the patron and school
management authority of that school or schools involved) and secures the
approval of the DES, which will have regard to any capital resource issues in
making its decision.
Federation in the context of this report is the description used for a form of splitsite amalgamation that involves small schools of similar size (1- or 2mainstream classroom teacher only) coming together. There must be a
minimum of 20 pupils on each site. This kind of arrangement is seen by the
Committee as allowing as many small school entities as possible to continue in
their local community while at the same time achieving rationalisation of
provision.
- 201 -
2.
School closure
Should a school decide to close, the normal closure procedures apply. School
places will have to be secured for the pupils in nearby schools.
In order to facilitate planning and confirmation of the necessary reorganisation
arrangements, for schools in this category identification of options and
implementation of the changes should commence immediately and must be
fully in place by the end of the 2016/17 school year in respect of all 1- and 2mainstream classroom teacher schools.
Where schools fail to re-organise by the specified date, the school (s) involved
should be subject to financial penalties in the form of funding restrictions.
Schools that cannot demonstrate progress in the re-organisation process may
be subject to progressive financial penalties in the interim. Ultimately the
Minister for Education and Skills may withdraw recognition from the schools.
Recommendation 3
It is recommended that 1- and 2- mainstream classroom teacher schools
located between 2km and 8 km (1.2 miles and 5 miles) from another school of
the same ethos and medium of instruction should re-organise in order to
preferably achieve the enrolment threshold for at least 4 mainstream
classroom teachers. All 3-teacher schools located less than 8 km from
another school of the same ethos and medium of instruction should also seek
to re-organise to form schools of at least 4 mainstream classroom teachers,
subject to further examination of the practicalities involved in these cases.
Re-organisation should be commenced from the 2013/14 school year on a
phased basis and should be completed within the fastest feasible timeframe,
with the bulk of the implementation to be accomplished in the seven years
from the 2013/2014 school year. Where feasible re-organisation options are
not progressed, schools should be subject to a phased withdrawal of
preferential capitation rates and any preferential staffing allocations.
3
Increase enrolment threshold for withdrawal of recognition
The Committee has considered re-organisation proposals for small schools in light of
four distance bands as follows:
•
Schools in close proximity:
These are small schools up to 8km (5 miles) distant from the nearest school of the
same type.
Estimated number is 540 schools.
•
Less remote mainland schools:
These are small schools more than 8km (5 miles) but less than 15km (9.3 miles)
from the nearest school of the same type.
- 202 -
Estimated number is in the region of 70 – 100 schools
•
Remote mainland schools:
These are small schools more than 15km (9.3 miles) but less than 30km (18.6 miles)
away from the nearest school of the same type.
Estimated number is in the region of about 30 schools.
•
Island and very remote schools:
These are small schools that are the only school on an off-shore island or that are
more than 30km (18.6 miles) away from the nearest school of the same type.
Estimated number is about 20 schools.
It is recommended that the threshold below which recognition is withdrawn from small
schools would increase, with a number of different thresholds applying, depending on
the proximity of the small school to other schools serving the same community.
Recommendation 4
The VFM recommendation regarding the minimum enrolment
thresholds below which recognition is withdrawn would mean the
following range would apply:
•
For schools within 8km of another school of the same ethos
and medium of instruction, the minimum threshold should be
rd
set to the level at which the 3 teaching post is appointed (i.e.
Principal plus 2-mainstream classroom teachers). That
threshold will be 56 pupils in 2014.
•
For schools more than 8km and less than 15km from another
school of the same ethos and medium of instruction, the
threshold for withdrawal of recognition should be increased to
nd
the level at which the 2 teaching post is appointed (i.e.
Principal plus one mainstream classroom teacher). That
threshold will be 20 pupils in 2014.
•
For schools more than 15km and less than 30km from another
school of the same ethos and medium of instruction, the
minimum threshold should be increased to 12 pupils.
•
In the case of island schools which are the only primary
school on the island and in the case of small schools which
are located more than 30km from the nearest school of the
same ethos and medium of instruction, the relevant pupil
threshold should be considered on a case-by-case basis by
the DES.
Currently, the Minister for Education and Skills may withdraw recognition from
a school which had a total enrolment of less than 8 pupils over two consecutive
years. It is recommended that:
•
In assessing whether recognition should be withdrawn, the Department
should take action in the first year if there is a dip in enrolment that
indicates it will be virtually impossible for the school to maintain the
- 203 -
minimum required numbers. This would avoid the situation that arises at
present where a school’s enrolment is below the minimum required in Year
1 and the situation runs into Year 2. The teacher then has to be
redeployed and the school closed well into the commencement of Year 2.
This is not a good use of resources.
Implementation of this recommendation would result in possibly one or two
small primary schools being closed in a year. It is not possible to be precise as
it depends on the number of schools in a given year, but most years there can
be at least one school in such a position.
Recommendation 5
With an annual cost premium of some €43 million for schools of 1-, 2- and 3mainstream classroom teachers, the Committee recommends that, given the
budgetary constraints and the need to demonstrate as much equity as possible in
the financing of primary expenditure, every effort should be made to implement a
phased programme of re-organisation in order to achieve at least €30 million in
annual savings in the fastest feasible timeframe, with the bulk of the implementation
to be accomplished in the seven years from the 2013/2014 school year. This
saving would be in addition to the €15m already being achieved as a result of the
phased adjustment to the staffing schedule for 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-teacher schools.
9.3 Issues regarding particular categories of school
Protestant/Presbyterian small schools
The recommendations set out in this report are intended to apply to all small schools.
The Committee recommends that small schools are reorganised with schools of the
same ethos and medium of instruction. However, if enrolment numbers fall to a very
low level, as with other small schools, schools catering for a minority denomination
would become unsustainable. The Committee does not recommend that joint
patronage would be a requirement. However, the Committee agrees that there may
be scope, over time, for schools under the patronage of the Protestant community to
consider reorganisation options involving other schools under Protestant patronage.
Schools under the patronage of the Church of Ireland, Presbyterian Church and
Methodist Church use the same Religious Education programme (Follow-Me) and a
number of joint-patronage arrangements are already operating.
Gaeltacht small schools
9% of small schools are located in Gaeltacht areas, a number of which are
encompassed by the recommendations of this report. The Committee agrees that it
is important, in order to ensure that the sustainability of the Gaeltacht as a distinct
linguistic community is not potentially compromised, that as a general rule Gaeltacht
- 204 -
schools are not reorganised through amalgamation with other schools in which Irish is
not the language of instruction. Reorganisation through amalgamation of schools
with differing language of instruction may only be considered on a case by case
basis.
Island small schools
13 small schools are categorised as island schools. The recommendations of this
report categorise small schools based on their proximity to neighbouring schools.
Island schools, which are the only remaining primary school on the island, are
excluded from these recommendations.
Joint patronage options/ multi-denominational options
Over time schools may wish to explore other reorganisation options such as forming
inter-denominational schools, for example, schools under the joint patronage of the
Catholic Church and Church of Ireland or Presbyterian Church.
The Community National School model of patronage may also present an
appropriate option for some communities. This is a new model of primary school
patronage which is being developed in a pilot model since late 2008 in which the
State is directly involved in the provision of primary education. The distinguishing
feature of the Community National School model is its capacity to cater for children of
all beliefs and none in the school setting during the school day through a multi-belief
religious education programme.
Minimum enrolment threshold for allocation of capitation and ancillary services
grants
The current minimum threshold for the allocation of capitation and ancillary services
grants is at the 60 pupil level, that is, all small schools and schools with up to 60
pupils are allocated annual grants on the same basis as a 60 pupil school (currently
€20,220, which reduces to €19,800 in 2012 as set out in Budget 2012. Budget 2012
provides for a further 2% reduction to the capitation grant for all primary schools in
2013 and a further 1% reduction in each of 2014 and 2015. Budget 2012 did not
change the rate of the ancillary services grant). A balance is required between
reducing the favourable allocation of resources to small schools while recognising
that all stand alone school premises incur a certain level of fixed costs, irrespective of
enrolment numbers. It is proposed therefore that the minimum capitation threshold
would be retained for stand alone school sites that are part of an
amalgamated/federated school entity (a minimum threshold will not continue to apply
for those schools that fail to make progress in the re-organisation process).
Review rules governing the amalgamation of small primary schools
It is recommended that DES review the rules that have generally governed the
amalgamation of small primary schools.
Such rules should include that where a small school of under 56 pupils amalgamates
with, or is subsumed into, another school, the allocation of any concessionary post(s)
would no longer apply.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that DES review the rules setting the parameters to govern the
amalgamation of schools.
- 205 -
9.4 Conclusions
Ireland has a large number of small primary schools, many of which are located in
close proximity to other schools serving the same community. Given the distribution of
Ireland’s population and geographic and spatial features, there will always be a need
for small schools as part of overall primary school provision. However, it is clear that
there is considerable scope for reorganising provision in many areas and for achieving
greater fairness and equity in the distribution of resources to primary schools.
Education is labour intensive. The bulk of education expenditure is on pay (salaries and
pensions for teaching and non-teaching staff). The key driver for appointment of staff is
pupil enrolments and their distribution. Pupil enrolments have risen strongly since the
year 2000 and will continue to rise, based on our birth data. Ireland currently has the
highest birth rate of the EU 27 countries. In 2011, the overall number of primary
schools was almost the same as in the year 2000. Yet, there were almost 83,000 more
pupils enrolled, and birth data indicates that enrolments will continue to increase. The
rapidly rising enrolment has resource consequences for all levels of the education
system. At primary level, the increased enrolment is being borne by larger schools in
the areas which continue to experience the greatest population growth and have the
largest class sizes. Simultaneously, small schools benefit from a more favourable
allocation of resources. Re-distribution of resources would achieve greater equity and
would also make resources available to cater for the continually increasing enrolment
and service demands. There is no evidence that there is any correlation between
school size and pupil attainment and there is no justification for educational reasons to
continue the favourable disproportionate allocation of resources to small primary
schools.
The Committee has adopted a two-pronged approach to adjust the resource allocation
to all small schools and to reorganise provision in areas where small schools are
located in close proximity (less than 8km) to another school serving the same
community. In addition, the Committee has recommended increases in the threshold
for the closure of small schools, with a number of different thresholds applying,
depending on the proximity of the small school to other schools serving the same
community. In this way, the Committee has attempted to achieve a balance between
reorganisation of the large number of very small schools into more viable units and
facilitating the retention of small schools in communities in certain circumstances.
9.5
Future performance indicators
The Committee proposes that the following single Performance Indicator be adopted as
a means of monitoring overall progress in implementing the recommendations set out
in this report:
•
The number of schools of less than 4 mainstream classroom teachers as a
proportion of overall school numbers.
- 206 -
Appendices
- 207 -
Appendix 1:
Staffing schedule 2012/13
- 208 -
Appendix 2: Teacher allowances for posts of responsibility
€
average teacher cost (excl. ER PRSI)
60,000
principal allowance (1-2 authorised posts) (P)
9,310
principal allowance (3-5 authorised posts) (P)
9,310
principal allowance (6-7 authorised posts) (P)
principal allowance (8-11 authorised posts) (P)
10,432
12,238
principal allowance (12-13 authorised posts) (P)
14,360
principal allowance (14-16 authorised posts) (P)
16,705
principal allowance (20-23 authorised posts) (P)
21,386
principal allowance (24-26 authorised posts) (P)
23,714
deputy principal allowance (3-5 authorised posts) (DP)
3,769
deputy principal allowance (6-7 authorised posts) (DP)
4,932
deputy principal allowance (8-11 authorised posts) (DP)
6,520
deputy principal allowance (12-13 authorised posts) (DP)
8,173
deputy principal allowance (14-16 authorised posts) (DP)
9,773
deputy principal allowance (20-23 authorised posts) (DP)
13,051
deputy principal allowance (24-26 authorised posts) (DP)
14,630
assistant principal allowance (APP)
8,520
special duties allowance (SDP)
3,769
1-teacher
1P
2-teachers
1P+1SDP
4- & 6-teachers
1P+1DP+1SDP
8-teachers
12-teachers
1P+1DP+2SDP
1P+1DP+4SDP
16-teachers
1P+1DP+1APP+5SDP
20-teachers
1P+1DP+2APP+6SDP
24-teachers
1P+1DP+3APP+7SDP
- 209 -
Appendix 3 Assumptions used in calculating estimated current expenditure for 2014
The estimated current expenditure of schools of various sizes relate only to the main categories of current
expenditure that apply to all schools. No capital expenditure or transportation costs have been factored
in. These are addressed separately in the analysis.
For the purpose of these calculations the following assumptions are made:
• Schools are mainstream, English-medium schools.
• Schools are not part of the DEIS SSP.
• Schools have no special classes.
Capitation
The estimated 2014 capitation rate will be €173 per pupil, with a minimum grant of €10,380 applying in
respect of schools with enrolments of up to 60 pupils. Enhanced capitation grants are paid in relation to
pupils with special needs who attend special classes dedicated to pupils with particular special needs in
mainstream schools in addition to pupils attending special schools. For the purposes of these
calculations the €173 per pupil rate is used.
Ancillary Services
Most schools deal with secretarial and caretaker services through the ancillary services grant. The
estimated 2014 ancillary services grant rate will be €147 per pupil, with a minimum grant of €8,820
applying in respect of schools with enrolments of up to 60 pupils. A small number of schools are provided
with secretarial or caretaking assistance whose salary is fully funded by the Department under the
1978/1979 schemes. For the purposes of these calculations, the assumption is made that schools do not
have any secretary or caretaker under the 1978/1979 schemes and therefore qualify for the full ancillary
services grant.
Teacher salaries and allowances
The number of teachers assigned to each school is based on the staffing schedule as set out in Circular
0007/12 which sets out the staffing arrangements for primary schools for the 2012/13 year. Figures are
87
based on the appointment and retention thresholds applying to ordinary schools . An average cost of a
primary teaching post, excluding employer PRSI, of €60,000 is used. Additional posts of responsibility
allowances for Principal or Deputy Principal are added to the average teaching cost, where applicable.
Authorised posts for application of posts of responsibility thresholds are based on mainstream class
teacher numbers and not on all permanent teachers assigned to the schools (which would include nonmainstream class teachers).
87
More favourable thresholds apply to the retention of teachers in Gaeltacht schools and to the
appointment and retention of teachers in Gaelscoileanna.
210
Appendix 4: Basis for calculation of estimated capital costs of schools of various
sizes by teacher number
The estimated costs include costs related to building, site works/external works, fitted furniture, fees and
VAT. Charges such as those relating to planning permission, fire certificate and disability access
certificate are excluded from the estimates as these charges vary depending on the planning authority in
question. However their exclusion should not greatly affect the estimated costs as the charges are small
in proportion to the overall costs of building the schools and there is not much variation in the rate
applying to each sized-school as maximum charges apply.
The number of pupils in each school is taken as the estimated mean number of pupils in 2014.
The total area for each school is based on figures provided by the building unit technical staff. For the 8classroom school, the estimated area given refers to an 8-classroom school which may be expanded to a
larger school at a later stage rather than an 8-classroom single-stream school. It is assumed that 12
classroom schools have 2 staircases and 16- -classroom school has 3 staircases.
The estimated building costs are based on the average building cost of €930 for all schools as per circular
xxx . Smaller schools generally cost more than the average figure with larger schools generally coming in
under the average figure due to economies of scale. This has been accounted for somewhat in the
figures by rounding up the estimates (at row 11) for the smaller schools and rounding down the estimates
for the larger schools.
The maximum threshold of 12.5% for external works has been applied to all schools. In addition, a rate of
15% of the combined building and external costs has been applied to allow for abnormal costs. These
allow for expenditure arising from the unique nature of each school and school site.
A rate of 7.5% to cover professional fees has been applied to the full cost of building each school.
The ideal minimum site requirement for each school size is based on the site requirements communicated
to local authorities, rounded up to the nearest acre. While new 2-teacher schools are no longer built, for
comparison purposes an assumption has been made that the minimum site requirement for a 4-teacher
school also applies to a 2-teacher school. No estimated average site purchase cost has been applied.
Land prices vary significantly depending on the location and there has been a downward trend in land
prices since 2008.
Estimated costs for loose furniture and equipment are not included as figures relating to such expenditure
vary depending on the quotations submitted to DES by the school in question.
Based on the above qualifications, the estimated costs per new school are likely to be maximum costs.
However, as the same thresholds have been applied to each school size, these figures should facilitate a
comparison of the capital costs of building schools of each size.
211
Appendix 5: Sample area studies
212
Sample 1 map
213
Sample 1 options
The population of the county in which this sample area is located increased by 5.5% in the period 2006 – 2011 and by 5.4% in the
period 2002 – 2006.
Enrolment in the four schools in Sample area 1 has fallen from a total of 99 pupils collectively to 58 pupils between 2001 and 2011. An
analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will remain stable in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 42 children in the age
cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 54 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
All four small schools in this sample have an enrolment of less than 20 pupils each. Since the sampling exercise was conducted,
School 4 closed in August 2012. School 3 had a provisional enrolment of 13 pupils in September 2012. Unless it reaches 17 pupils in
September 2013, it will become a 1-teacher school in 2013/14 school year. Under the phased arrangements outlined in the Staffing
Schedule for 2012 – 2014 it is likely that schools 1 and 2 will become 1-teacher schools by 2014/15, unless their enrolment rises above
20 pupils.
Options explored for Sample Area 1
Exploration of re-organisation options for the schools in Sample Area 1 yielded the following:
1. A FEDERATION
•
1. B
The minimum size for a federation is 50 pupils. There are 58 pupils between the four small schools in this sample area but they
are dispersed widely from each other so it would not be practical to federate all four schools together. Schools 2, 3 & 4 are
relatively near each other and could form a federation but they do not have the minimum 50 pupils required between them.
Therefore, federation is not an option for Sample Area 1.
INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would affect school 4. There are four schools within 8km of school 4.
The closest school is School C (71 pupils) which is 4km away. School 2 (18 pupils) is 4.9km away. Given the fact that the
distance to School 2 is only marginally further away and School 2 needs just two more pupils to become a 2-teacher school, it is
possible that a few pupils may opt to go to School 2.
School 4 (10 pupils) would have to close. Assume its 10 pupils will enrol in two schools, namely 8 pupils will go to school C (
which will bring school C it to 79 pupils )and 2 pupils go to small school 2 (which would result in small school 2 achieving the
enrolment threshold to become a 2-teacher school). This is explored at 1.C.3
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils (assuming the 12 pupil threshold has previously been implemented)
would result in the following sequence:
o Firstly, school 3 (12 pupils) would have to amalgamate with small school 2 (now 20 pupils) to form a 32-pupil 2-teacher
school. This is explored at 1.C.4
214
o
•
Secondly, school 1 (18 pupils) would have to amalgamate with School B (52 pupils) to form a 70-pupil 3-teacher school.
This is explored at 1.C.5.
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils (assuming the 20 pupil threshold has previously been implemented)
would have the following effect:
o School 2 (now 32 pupils) would have to amalgamate with School B (now 70 pupils) to form a 102-pupil 4- teacher school.
This is explored at 1.C.6.
1. C
AMALGAMATION OPTIONS
Option
reference
1.C.1
1.C.2
1.C.3
1.C.4
1.C.5
1.C.6
Option description
Amalgamate school 4 (10 pupils) with School C (71 pupils) to form an 81-pupil 3-teacher school
Amalgamate schools 1,2, & 3 with school B – to form a 100-pupil 4-teacher school on a single site basis
or on a split-site basis (a 2 way split of site of school B and either site of small school 2 or small school
3)
Amalgamate school 4 (10 pupils) on the basis of 8 pupils going to School C (to make it a 79-pupil 3teacher school) and 2 pupils going to school 2 (to make it a 20-pupil 2-teacher school).
Amalgamate school 3 (12 pupils) with school 2 (now 20 pupils) to form a 32- pupil 2-teacher school
Amalgamate school 1(18 pupils) with school B (52 pupils) to form 70-pupil 3-teacher school
Amalgamate school 2 (now 32 pupils) with School B (now 70 pupils) to form a 102-pupil 4-teacher school
215
Sample 2 map
216
Sample 2 options
The population of the county in which this sample area is located increased by 5.6% in the period 2006 – 2011 and by 7.4% in the
period 2002 – 2006.
Enrolment in the four schools in Sample area 2 has fallen from a total of 125 pupils collectively to 106 pupils between 2001 and 2011.
An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will remain stable in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 31 children in the age
cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 36 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
School 4 is likely to become a one- teacher school in September 2013/4 unless it reaches an enrolment level of 17 pupils in September
2013. . Its 2011/12 enrolment was 14 pupils which meant that it was entitled to two teachers for 2012/13. However, its provisional
enrolment for 2012/13 is 10 pupils which would mean that it would become a 1-teacher school in 2013/14. As the enrolment data over
the past ten years shows the school is consistently below 20 pupils, it is regarded as a 1-teacher school in the exploration of options.
Options explored for Sample 2
The following re-organisation options were identified as appropriate to explore in Sample Area 1:
A. FEDERATION OPTIONS
•
Two different federation options to be explored as follows:
o Federate schools 1 (31 pupils), 2 (36 pupils) and 3 (21 pupils) to form an 88 pupil school. This is explored at 2.A.1
A school of 88 pupils would be entitled to 4 teachers. If the federation operated on three sites, the 4 teachers would
have to be allocated across the three sites of 21, 31 and 36 pupils. If the federation operated on two sites, assume that
school 1 would close and its 31 pupils would enrol in School 3 to make it a 52 pupil location.
o
•
•
Federate schools 1 (31 pupils), 3 (21 pupils) and 4 (12 pupils) on the sites of schools 1 and 3. This is explored at 2.A.2
B. EFFECT OF INCREASING RECOGNITION THRESHOLDS
Effect of increasing the recognition threshold to 12 pupils would not result in any closures.
Increasing the recognition threshold to 20 pupils would result in one closure as follows:
o Close small school 4 (12 pupils) and amalgamate with its nearest school which is a 23 pupil school 4km away to the east
(not on the map). This is explored at 2.C.3
217
•
Increasing the recognition threshold to 50 pupils (assuming the 20 pupil threshold has previously been implemented) would
mean there are three schools with under 50 pupils.
o The three schools could agree to federate. This is explored at 2.A.1
Or
o
C.
o
o
o
The three schools could agree to amalgamate. This is explored below at 2.C.1.
AMALGAMATION OPTIONS
Amalgamate schools 1 (31 pupils), 2(36 pupils) and 3 (21 pupils) on a single site and three site basis. An 88-pupil school
would be due four teachers. Given current pupil distribution between the three sites, equitable staff distribution would be
a challenge.
Amalgamate school 3(21 pupils, school 4(12pupils) and school A (69 pupils) to form a 102-pupil school which would be
due four teachers. Explore this amalgamation on a split-site basis (site of A and 3) and on a single-site basis, site of A. If
the 12 pupils from school 4 moved to school 3, that would result in a 33-pupil unit at the site of school 3 and a 69-pupil
unit at A. Equitable staff distribution would be a challenge. Also, school 3 only has one permanent classroom and one
prefab classroom. The other option is for the 12 pupils from school 4 to move to school A which would result in an 81
pupil unit at school A and 21 pupils in school 3.
Close small school 4 (12pupils) and amalgamate it with its nearest school which is a 23-pupil school 4km away to the east
(outside the map area).
Option
Reference
Option description
2.C.1
Amalgamate schools 1 (31 pupils),2 (36 pupils) and 3 (21 pupils) on a single site and three site basis to
form an 88-pupil school
2.C.2
Amalgamate school 3(21 pupils, school 4 (12pupils) and school A (69 pupils) to form a 102-pupil 4teacher school on a single site and split-site basis.
2.C.3
Amalgamate school 4 (12 pupils) with a 23-pupil school 4km away to from a 2-teacher 35-pupil school on
a single site
218
Sample 3 map
219
Sample 3 options
The population of the county in which this sample area is located increased by 8.2 % in the period 2006 – 2011 and by 10.8% in the
period 2002 – 2006.
Enrolment in the five schools in Sample area 3 has fallen from a total of 157 pupils collectively to 132 pupils between 2001 and 2011.
An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will remain stable in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 152 children in the age
cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 156 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
School 4 had 8 pupils in 2011/12 and its provisional enrolment for 2012/13 is 7 pupils. It is already a 1-teacher school and its enrolments
appear to have declined steadily over recent years. In the year 2001/2 it had 60 pupils. A continuous decline of this nature suggests
that the school could be heading naturally towards closure.
School 1 became a 1-teacher school in September 2012 (since the sampling exercise was conducted). Its 2011 enrolment was 13
pupils but its September 2012 enrolment was 11 pupils.
Options explored for Sample 3
The following re-organisation options were identified as appropriate to explore in Sample Area 3:
3. A FEDERATION OPTIONS
•
Two different federation options to be explored as follows:
Option
reference
3.A.1
3.A.2
Option description
Federate schools 1 (12 pupils), 2 (42 pupils) and 3 (36 pupils) to form a 90-pupil federation. A school of
90 pupils warrants 4 teachers. Explore the federation on two sites, namely sites of 2 and 3. As schools 2
and 3 are almost equidistant from school 1, assume the 12 pupils from school 1 will go to school 3 and so
ensure as equitable a pupil distribution as possible for staffing purposes.
Federate schools 1 (12 pupils), 2 (42 pupils) and 5 (24 pupils) to form 78-pupil federation on the sites of
schools 2 and 5. A 78-pupil school warrants 3 teachers. Assume the 12 pupils from school 1 go to
school 2 (nearest school) to form a 54 pupil unit.
220
3. B INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
• Increasing the minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would affect one schools, namely school 4 (10 pupils). Its nearest
school is School B (63 pupils) 2.6km away. Next nearest is a 56-pupil school (4.2km away) to the east of the map. There is also
a 42-pupil school 4.2km away in another direction off the map (to the south-west). The 10 pupils from School 4 could seek to go
to either of these two schools which are both within 4.2km, rather than School B which is their nearest school. As 56 pupils is
the exact threshold for gaining a third teacher under the Staffing Schedule announced for 2012 – 2014, explore the effect if the
ten pupils went to the 56-pupil school to the east. Explored at 3.C.1.
•
Increasing the minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils (assuming the 12 pupils threshold had been previously
implemented) would affect one school as follows:
o School 1 (12 pupils) would have to close and amalgamate with its nearest school which is school 2 (42 pupils) 4km away.
Explored at 3.C.2
•
Increasing the minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils (assuming the 20 pupil threshold has previously been implemented)
would affect school 3 and school 5.
Possible options for school 3 would be:
o Federation of small schools 1, 2 and 3 .Explored at 3.A.1.
Or
o Amalgamate school 3 with school 2 (which now incorporates school 1 following the 20 pupil threshold). Explored at 3.C.3
In the case of school 5, there are three schools within a 6km distance and there could be a possibility for any of them to
amalgamate with school 5. Firstly, its nearest school is School C (61 pupils) 4.6km away. Between them, School 5 and School
C would have 85 pupils (based on 2010 enrolments). This is 1 pupil short of the threshold for appointing a fourth teacher under
the increased appointment /retention figures that will apply by 2014. If enrolment increased by 1 pupil, amalgamation could be
an attractive prospect to both parties. Secondly, School A (173 pupils) is 5.2km away in a town area. If School A gained the 24
pupils from School 5, it would get an extra teacher which would result in School A having an administrative principal. Thirdly,
there is an 88 pupil school which is 5.5km away in a south-westerly direction, off the map. As 88 pupils is very close to the
retention limit for a fourth teacher, the addition of 24 pupils from school 5 may be of benefit to this 88 pupil school.
As a possible option for school 5 explore:
o
Amalgamation with 88-pupil school 5.2km away (off the map). Explored at 3.C.4.
221
3. C
AMALGAMATION OPTIONS
Option
reference
Option description
3.C.1
Amalgamate school 4 (10 pupils) with a 56-pupil school to the east to form a 66-pupil 3-teacher school
3.C.2
Amalgamate school 1 (12 pupils) with school 2 (42 pupils to form a 54-pupil 2-teacher school
3.C.3
Amalgamate school 2 (now 54 pupils) with school 3 (36 pupils) to form a 90 pupil 4-teacher school
3.C.4
Amalgamate school 5 (24 pupils) with an 88 pupil school to the south-west (off the map) to form a 112-pupil 4-teacher
school
3.C.5
Amalgamate school 3 (36 pupils), school 4 (10 pupils) & school B (63 pupils) to form a 109-pupil 4-teacher school.
Explore on
3.C.6
Amalgamate schools 1 (12 pupils), 2 (42 pupils), 5 (24 pupils) & C (61 pupils) to form a 139-pupil 5-teacher school.
Explore on a single site (site of C) and three site (2, 5 & C) basis (namely site 5 with 24 pupils, site C with 61 pupils and
site 2 with 54 pupils). A school of 139 pupils warrants 5 teachers.
222
Sample 4 map
223
Sample 4 options
The population of the county in which this sample area is located increased by 5.5% in the period 2006 – 2011 and by 5.4% in the
period 2002 – 2006.
Enrolment in the three schools in Sample area 4 has increased slightly from a total of 80 pupils collectively to 83 pupils between 2001
and 2011. An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census,
shows that the primary school population will decline slightly in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 56
children in the age cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 76 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
The three small schools in the sample are all currently two-teacher schools. Under the phased arrangements outlined in the Staffing
Schedule for 2012 – 2014, they should still be two-teacher schools in 2014, if their current enrolments stay steady. Schools 1 and 3
have been experiencing declining enrolments in recent years and at 22 and 21 pupils respectively are now both close to the 20 pupil
level for retaining a second teacher. If their enrolment decline continued, they are likely to become one-teacher schools in the near
future. School D, at 86 pupils, is exactly on the threshold for retention of the fourth teacher. If enrolments drop by even one pupil it is
below the threshold and could lose its fourth teacher.
Options explored for Sample 4
The following re-organisation options were identified as appropriate to explore in Sample Area 4:
4. A FEDERATION OPTIONS
•
There are 3 small schools in the sample area and the distance between them is as follows:
o School 1 to School 2 - 9 km
o School 2 to School 3 - 14.4 km
o School 3 to School 1 - 9.5 km
Based on these distances, federation was not explored as an option for Sample Area 4.
4. B INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
• Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
224
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils would affect the three small schools in the sample, as follows:
o
o
o
4. C
School 3 (21 pupils) is the smallest school in the sample. Its nearest school is School C (4.1km away). It could close and
amalgamate with School C (on a same-site or split-site basis). There is a 25-pupil small school which is a small bit further
away (4.7 km away) which would also be affected by an increase in the recognition threshold to 50 pupils. But if small
school 3 amalgamated with that 25-pupil school they still would not form a school of at least 50 pupils. Therefore the only
option appears to be for school 3 to amalgamate with school C (125 pupils) to form a 146-pupil school. A 146- pupil
school would be entitled to six teachers (appointment threshold for the sixth teacher is 145 pupils). Explore the option on a
same-site and split-site basis. Option explored at 4.C.1
School 1 (22 pupils) is the next smallest school in the sample. There is no other small school within 8km of it. The four
schools within 8km of it are all over 50 pupils. The nearest is School A (265 pupils). Explore the option to close small
school 1 and amalgamate it with School A to form a 287 pupil school. A 287 pupil school would be entitled to a Principal
and eleven teachers (appointment threshold for the eleventh teacher is 286 pupils. Explore the option on a same-site or
split-site basis. Explored at 4.C.2
School 2 (40 pupils) is the next smallest school in the sample. There are two schools within 8km of it. The first is School
A (6.1km away). The next is a 42 pupil small school (7.5km away) which would be affected by an increase in the
recognition threshold to 50 pupils. If small school 2 amalgamated with that 42 pupil school (on a same-site or split-site
basis) both of them would avoid closure. An 82 pupil school would be entitled to 3 teachers and that poses a challenge
for a split-site amalgamation. Explore the amalgamation on a same-site and split-site basis. Explored at 4.C.3
AMALGAMATION OPTIONS
Option
Option description
reference
4.C.1
4.C.2
4.C.3
Amalgamate schools 3 (21 pupils) and C (125 pupils) to form a 146 pupil school. This would be due a
Principal plus five teachers. Explore the option on a single site and split-site basis.
Amalgamate school 1 (22 pupils) and school A ( 265 pupils) to form a 287-pupil 12-teacher school
Amalgamate school 2 (20 pupils) with a 42-pupil school (just off the map) to form an 82-pupil 3-teacher
school, on a same-site or split-site basis.
225
4.C.4
Amalgamate schools 1 (22 pupils), 2 (40 pupils) and School A (265 pupils) to form a 327 pupil school. A
327 pupil school would be due a Principal plus twelve teachers. Explore the option on a single site, two
site (A&2) and three-site basis
226
Sample 5 map
227
Sample 5 options
The population of the county in which this sample area is located increased by 6.3% in the period 2006 – 2011 and by 5.2% in the
period 2002 – 2006.
Enrolment in the four schools in Sample area 5 has fallen from a total of 134 pupils collectively to 107 pupils between 2001 and 2011.
An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will remain stable in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 160 children in the age
cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 167 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
The four small schools in the sample are all currently two-teacher schools. Under the phased arrangements outlined in the Staffing
Schedule for 2012 – 2014, they should still be two-teacher schools in 2014, if their current enrolments stay steady. Enrolment levels at
school 1 have declined over the past ten years. At 22 pupils now, it is close to the 20 pupil level for retaining a second teacher. If the
enrolment decline continued, it would be likely to become one-teacher schools in the near future. The provisions of the Staffing
Schedule for 2012 – 2014 could potentially affect three of the larger schools, namely Schools C, F and I. In the case of School C, if its
enrolment remains at 84 pupils it could become a 3-teacher school by 2013/14. The enrolments at School F tend to fluctuate between
50 and 56 pupils over the past five years. They must reach 54 pupils in 2012/13 for the school to continue as a 3-teacher school in
2013. They need to be at 56 pupils in 2013 for the school to remain as a 3-teacher school in 2014. In the case of School I, its
enrolment levels over recent years have fluctuated around the 85 – 90 pupil level. In order for it to continue as a 4-teacher school into
2014 and beyond, it needs to remain at 86 pupils or more. Currently it is exactly on the 86 pupil mark.
Options explored for Sample 5
The following re-organisation options were identified as appropriate to explore for Sample Area 5:
228
5. A FEDERATION OPTIONS
•
Federation option to be explored as follows:
Option
reference
Option description
Federate schools 1 (22 pupils), 3 (39 pupils) and 4 (31 pupils) to form a 92-pupil federation.
A 92-pupil school would be due four teachers.
5.A.1
Allocating the staff on an equitable basis is a challenge on both a 2-site and a 3-site basis, given the
current pupil distribution.
Federate school 4 (31 pupils) with a 44-pupil school which is 4.6km away (off the map) to form a 75-pupil
federation.
5.A.2
5. B
INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils would affect all four small schools.
o
Three of the schools (1, 3 and 4) are close to each other. They could respond collectively by agreeing to form a
federation. This is explored at 5.A.1.
o
If schools 1,3 and 4 did not wish to make a collective response to an increased threshold, each of them has options to
respond individually which involve other schools, as follows:
•
School 1 (22 pupils) could amalgamate with:
• School C (84 pupils) and 2.9km away to form a 106 pupil 4-teacher school. Explored at 5.C.1.
•
School F (59 pupils) and 4.2km away to form an 81 pupil 3-teacher school.
229
•
o
5. C
School B (53 pupils) and 5.9km away to form a 75 pupil 3-teacher school.
•
School 3 (39 pupils) could amalgamate with School B (53 pupils) and 4km away to form a 92 pupil 4-teacher school
Explored at 5.C.3
•
School 4 (31 pupils) could :
• amalgamate or federate with the 44- pupil school which is 4.6km away from it (off the map) to form a
75-pupil 3-teacher school. As this option would be of interest to both schools in the context of a 50 pupil
minimum threshold, explore it. The amalgamation is explored at 5.C.4. The federation is explored at
5.A.2
• amalgamate with the 70 pupil school which is 5.7km away from it (off the map) and form a 101 pupil 4teacher school
• amalgamate with the 163 pupil school which is 6km away from it (off the map) and form a 194 pupil 9teacher school.
School 2 (23 pupils) could :
• Amalgamate with school F (59 pupils) which is 3.3km away from it and form an 82 pupil 3-teacher
school. Explored at 5.C.2
AMALGAMATION OPTIONS
Option reference
Option description
5.C.1
Amalgamate schools 1 (22 pupils) & C ( 84 pupils) to form a 106-pupil 4-teacher school
5.C.2
Amalgamate schools 2 (23 pupils) & F (59 pupils) to form an 82-pupil 3-teacher school
5.C.3
Amalgamate schools 3 (39 pupils) with school B (53 pupils) to form a 92-pupil 4-teacher
school
5.C.4
Amalgamate school 4 (31 pupils) with a 44-pupil school to the west, to form a 75-pupil 3teacher school
230
Sample 6 map
231
Sample 6 options
The population of the wider county this sample area is located in increased by 7.4% in the period 2002-2006, and by 5.3% 2006-2011.
Enrolment in the four schools in Sample area 6 has fallen from a total of 260 pupils collectively to 215 pupils between 2001 and 2011.
An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will decrease slightly in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 129 children in the
age cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 161 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
The phased arrangements outlined in the Staffing Schedule for 2012-2014 will affect School 6 and it could potentially affect Schools 5,7
and A, depending on their enrolment levels.
Following is a comment on each of the schools in relation to the revised staffing schedule:
School 6:
If the enrolment level of School 6 remains at 17 pupils, it will become a 1-teacher school by 2014.
Schools 5 and 7:
Both these schools had 21 pupils in 2010. If their enrolments drop below 20 pupils, they would become 1teacher schools from 2014 onwards.
School A:
At 56 pupils, it is exactly on the new threshold for retention of the third teaching post. If it drops below 56 pupils,
it would become a 2-teacher school after 2014.
In regard to School 1, since this VFM review commenced, School 1 had been notified in the normal course of events that consideration
was being given to withdrawing its recognition because its enrolment levels had dropped below the current closure threshold of 8 pupils
for two consecutive years. Following this, school 1 agreed to amalgamate with school 7 with effect from September 2012. Therefore, for
the purpose of the VFM review, it is assumed that the amalgamation has taken place and school 7 is being regarded as a 28 pupil
school for the purpose of the exploration of options
232
Options explored for Sample 6
The following re-organisation options were identified for exploration in Sample Area 6:
6. A FEDERATION OPTIONS
•
Federation option to be explored as follows:
Option
reference
6.A.1
6.A.2
6.A.3
6.A.4
Option description
2 sites
Federate schools 2 (33 pupils), 3 (39 pupils) and 4
(41 pupils) to form a 113-pupil federation. A 113pupil school would be due 4-teachers
Federate schools 2 (33 pupils), 5 (21 pupils) and 6
(17 pupils) to form a 71-pupil federation. A 71-pupil
school would be due 3 teachers.
Federate schools 2 (33 pupils), 3 (39 pupils), 4 (41
pupils) and 5 (21 pupils) to form a 134-pupil
federation. A 134-pupil school would be due 5
teachers.
Federate school 3 (39 pupils) and school 4 (41
pupils) to form an 80-pupil federation. An 80-pupil
school would be due 3 teachers.
3 sites
4 sites
33,39,41
4 teachers
33,38
3 teachers
21,33,39,41
5 teachers
39,41
3 teachers
6.A.5
Federate schools 2 (33 pupils), 3 (39 pupils), 4 (41
pupils) and 5 (now 38 pupils) to form a 151-pupil
federation. A 151-pupil school would be due 5
teachers.
33,38,39,41
5 teachers
6. B INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
• Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample. School 1 (7 pupils) is
below the current minimum viability threshold of 8 pupils. As indicated above, it agreed to amalgamate with School 7 effective
from September 2012.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils would affect school 6 (17 pupils). Its closest school is a 99-pupil school
which is 4km away (off the map). School 5 (21 pupils) is 4.5km away. Both schools are almost equidistant from school 6. In the
233
case of school 5, its enrolments fluctuate around the 20 pupil mark which means it is at risk of losing its second teacher if the
enrolment falls below 20 pupils. Therefore, it would be in its interest to amalgamate. An amalgamation of school 6 with school
5 is explored at 6.C.1
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils would affect all remaining small schools (2, 3, 4, 5 and 7). For this
purpose, it is assumed school 5 is now 38 pupils on the basis that the 17 pupils from school 6 moved to school 5 following its
amalgamation under the 20-pupil threshold.
o
o
o
Schools 2, 3, 4 and 5 are relatively close to each other. The distance from the two furthest schools (school 3 and school
5) is 11.5km. These four schools could respond possibly collectively to a 50 pupil minimum threshold by agreeing to form
a 151-pupil federation. This is explored at 6.A.5
If schools 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not wish to make a collective response to an increased threshold, they could respond
individually, as follows:
•
School 2 (33 pupils), now the smallest school within the sample could federate or amalgamate with School 5
(the next smallest at 38 pupils) which is 4.5km away. The relevant options are Federation option 6.A.2 and
Amalgamation option 6.C.5.
•
School 3 (39 pupils) could federate or amalgamate with School 4 (41 pupils) which is 4.4km away. The relevant
options are Federation option 6.A.4 and Amalgamation option 6.C.3.
School 7 (28 pupils with effect from Sept 2012) could amalgamate with School B (68 pupils) which is 4.8km away.
Explored at amalgamation option 6.C.4.
234
6. C
AMALGAMATION OPTIONS
Option
reference
6.C.1
6.C.2
6.C.3
Option description
Amalgamate school 6 (17 pupils) with school 5 (21 pupils) on a single-site basis (site of school 5)
Amalgamate school 2 (33 pupils) and school 5 (21 pupils) on a single site and split-site basis
Amalgamate school 3 (39 pupils) and school 4 (41 pupils) on a single site and split-site basis
6.C.4
School 7 (now 28 pupils) could amalgamate with School B (68 pupils) to form a 96-pupil school on a
single-site and split-site basis.
6.C.5
Amalgamate School 2 (33 pupils), School 5 (21 pupils) and School 6 (17 pupils) to form a 71- pupil
school on a single site and two-site basis.
6.C.6
6.C.7
Amalgamate School 2 (33 pupils), School 3 (39 pupils) and School 4 (41 pupils) to form a 113-pupil
school on a single site, two-site and three-site basis.
Amalgamate School 8 (42 pupils) and School A (56 pupils) to form a 98-pupil school on a single site
and split-site basis.
235
Sample 7 map
236
Sample 7 options
The population of the wider county this sample area is located in increased by 9.3% in the period 2002-2006, and by 9.0 % 2006-2011.
The five schools in sample area seven have fallen from a total of 195 pupils collectively to 156 pupils between 2001 and 2011. A
comparison of the primary school going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will remain stable in the medium term. The number in the 1 to 4 age group is 144 while there are 130 in the 9
to 12 age cohort.
Enrolment in the five schools in Sample area 7 has fallen from a total of 195 pupils collectively to 156 pupils between 2001 and 2011.
An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will remain stable in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 144 children in the age
cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 130 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years
The phased arrangements outlined in the Staffing Schedule for 2012-2014 will affect School 1. If the enrolment level of School 1
remains at 17 pupils, it will become a 1-teacher school by 2014.
Options explored for Sample 7
The following re-organisation options were identified for exploration in Sample Area 7:
7. A FEDERATION OPTIONS
•
Federation option to be explored as follows:
Option
reference
7.A.1
Option description
7.A.2
Federate school 4 (33 pupils) & school 5 (36 pupils).
Federate schools 3 (27 pupils), 4 (33 pupils) and 5 (36 pupils) to form a 96-pupil 4-teacher school.
Explore it on the basis of three sites and two sites (sites of 4 and 5). In the case of the two-site
exploration, assume the 27 pupils from school 3 go to school 5, their closest school. That would give
create a 63-pupil unit at school 5 and a 33-pupil unit at school 4. With this pupil distribution, equitable
allocation of four teachers across the two locations would be a challenge. In the case of the three-site
option, the allocation of four teachers across three units of 27 pupils, 33 pupils and 36 pupils would also
be challenging
237
7. B
INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils would affect school 1 (17 pupils). Its closest school is School 2 (46
pupils) 4.4km away. An amalgamation of Schools 1 & 2 would result in the closure of School 1 and the enrolment of its 17
pupils in School 2 to form a 63-pupil 3 –teacher school. This is explored at 7.C.2
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils would affect all remaining small schools (3, 4 and 5). For this
purpose, it is assumed School 2 is now 63 pupils as it gained 17 pupils from the closure of School 1 under the 20-pupil
minimum viability threshold. Therefore, School 2 would not be affected in the event of an increase of the minimum viability
threshold to 50 pupils.
o
Schools 3 (27 pupils), 4 (33 pupils) and 5 (36 pupils) are relatively near each other. The distance between the furthest
two schools is just less than 13km. They could respond collectively to a 50-pupil threshold by federating or amalgamating.
Federation explored at 7.A.1 and amalgamation explored at 7.C.1
Or
o
o
88
School 3 (27 pupils) could amalgamate with an 82 - pupil school to the south (not on the map) 5.7km away to form a 109pupil 4-teacher school. This amalgamation option is explored at 7.C.4.
Schools 4 (33 pupils) and 5 (36 pupils) could amalgamate or federate to form a 69-pupil 3-teacher school. They are each
other’s closest school and 4.4km apart. This amalgamation option is explored at 7.C.5. The federation option is explored
at 7.A.2.
88
This 82 pupil school would be a 4-teacher school in 2011/12. If it remains at 82 pupils it would become a 3-teacher school in 2013
under the terms of the revised staffing schedule for 2012-14.
238
7. C
AMALGAMATION OPTIONS
Option
reference
Option description
7.C.1
Amalgamate School 3 (27 pupils), School 4 (33 pupils) and School 5 (36 pupils) to form a 96-pupil 4teacher school on a single site and three-site basis
7.C.2
Amalgamate school 1 (17 pupils) and school 2 (46 pupils) to form a 63-pupil 3-teacher school on the site
of school 2.
7.C.3
Amalgamate school 1 (17 pupils), school 2 (46 pupils) and school A (78 pupils) to form a 141-pupil 5teacher school on a split-site basis (sites of A and School 2). Assume that the 17 pupils from school 1
transfer to school 2, which is their closest school and is 4.4km away.
7.C.4
Amalgamate school 3 (27 pupils) with an 82-pupil school (off the map) to form a 109-pupil 4-teacher
school
7.C.5
Amalgamate schools 4 (33 pupils) and 5 (36 pupils) to form a 69-pupil 3-teacher school.
239
Sample 8 map
240
Sample 8 options
The population of the wider county this sample area is located in increased by 7.5% in the period 2002-2006, and by 10.3 % in the
period 2006-2011.
Enrolment in the five schools in Sample area 8 has increased from a total of 116 pupils collectively to 146 pupils between 2001 and
2011. An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows
that the primary school population will increase slightly in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 146 children in
the age cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 112 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
The phased arrangements outlined in the Staffing Schedule for 2012-2014 are likely to affect Schools 3 and 4.
The enrolment of School 3 remained at 12 pupils in 2011/12. However, provisional enrolment figures for 2012/13 indicate that it had 19
pupils. This would mean it would still be a 2-teacher school for 2013/14. Under the provisions of the Staffing Schedule for 2012-2014, it
would require to achieve an enrolment of minimum 20 pupils in September 2014 in order to continue as a two-teacher school from 2014
onwards. ,
School 4 had 19 pupils in 2010/11, 18 pupils in 2011/12 and its provisional enrolment level for 2012/13 is 14 pupils. In order to retain its
second teacher, it would need enrolment of 17 pupils in 2013 and 20 pupils in 2014. Based on current information, it would seem that
School 4 will soon become a 1-teacher school under the provisions of the Staffing Schedule 2012Options explored for Sample 8
The following re-organisation options were identified for exploration in Sample Area 8:
8. A FEDERATION OPTIONS
•
Possible federation options to be explored as follows:
Option
reference
Option description
8.A.1
Federate schools 1 ( 24 pupils) ,2 (39 pupils) & 3(12 pupils) to form a 75-pupil federation
241
8.A.2
Federate schools 1 (24 pupils) and 2 (39 pupils) to form a 63-pupil federation
242
8. B
INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils would affect School 3 (12 pupils) and School 4 (19 pupils). Schools 3
and 4 could opt to respond collectively to a revised threshold by agreeing to amalgamate onto the site of School 4 to form a 31pupil school. This is explored at 8.C.1
If schools 3 and 4 opt not to respond collectively but instead to respond individually to the revised threshold following are
possible options:
o
o
•
School 3 could federate with schools 1 and 2. This is identified for exploration 8.A.1.
If school 3 federated with schools 1 and 2 and a minimum 20 pupil viability threshold was adopted, School 4 would have
to close and the 19 pupils transfer to the schools in the town which are just less than 5km away. As the town schools are
single gender, assume the pupils would transfer on the basis of two thirds of the pupils (say 12 pupils) to the infant
mixed/senior girls 191 pupil school and one third (say 7 pupils) to the boys only 73 pupil school. This option is identified
for exploration at 8.C.2.
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils would affect the schools as follows:
o
o
o
o
If Schools 1, 2 and 3 had federated as at 8.A.1 in response to a 20-pupil minimum threshold, they would not be affected
by the 50-pupil threshold.
If Schools 1, 2 and 3 had not formed a federation in response to a 20-pupil threshold, Schools 1(24 pupils) and 2 (39
pupils) would now have to federate or amalgamate and form a 63- pupil school. The federation option is identified for
exploration at 8.A.2. The amalgamation option is identified for exploration at 8.C.3.
In the case that schools 3 and 4 had previously amalgamated to form a 31-pupil school on the site of school 4 in response
to the 20 pupil threshold, the resultant 31-pupil school would now be affected by a 50-pupil minimum threshold. The only
option available to that school would be to close and the pupils would transfer to the single sex schools in the town to the
north of the map (5km away). Assume the pupils would transfer on the basis of two thirds of the pupils (say 20 pupils) to
the infant mixed/senior girls 191 pupil school and one third (say 11 pupils) to the boys only 73 pupil school. This
amalgamation option is identified for exploration at 8.C.4.
In the case of School 5 (40 pupils), an increased viability threshold would mean that it would have to close and
amalgamate/federate with another school. There are six schools within an 8km distance of School 5 and five of those
schools have enrolment of more than 50 pupils. The furthest away of the six schools, is school 1 (24 pupils) and its
243
7.7km away. The closest school to school 5 is School A (89 pupils) 3.9km away. An amalgamation with School A would
seem to be the most likely response and this is explored at 8.C.5.
244
C.
AMALGAMATION OPTIONS
Option reference
Option description
8.C.1
Amalgamate school 3 (12 pupils) with school 4 (19 pupils) to form a 31-pupil 2-teacher school
8.C.2
Amalgamate school 4 (19 pupils) with the town schools ((191 pupil infant mixed/senior girls
school and the 73 pupil boys school) to form 213 pupil 9-teacher infant mixed/senior girls school
and an 80-pupil 3-teacher boys only school
8.C.3
Amalgamate schools 1 (24 pupils) & 2 ( 39 pupils) to form a 63-pupil 3-teacher school
8.C.4
Amalgamate school 4 (now 31 pupils) with the town schools ((191 pupil 8-teacher infant
mixed/senior girls school and a 73-pupil 3-teacher boys school) to form a 211 pupil 9-teacher
infant mixed/senior girls school and an 84-pupil 3-teacher boys only school)
8.C.5
Amalgamate schools 5 (40 pupils) & A (89 pupils) to form a 129-pupil 5-teacher school
8.C.6
Amalgamate schools 1 (24 pupils) ,5 (40 pupils) & A(89 pupils) to form a 153-pupil 6-teacher
school
245
Sample 9 map
246
Sample 9 options
The population of the wider county this sample area is located in increased by 5.5% in the period 2002-2006, and by 4.1 % in the period
2006-2011.
Enrolment in the four schools in Sample area 9 has fallen from a total of 145 pupils collectively to 121 pupils between 2001 and 2011.
An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will remain stable in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 174 children in the age
cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 169 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
At current enrolment levels, the phased arrangements outlined in the Staffing Schedule for 2012-2014 will affect School 4 and School B.
If the enrolment level of School 4 remains below 20 pupils, it will become a 1-teacher school by September 2014. If the enrolment level
of School B remains below 86 pupils, it will become a 3-teacher school by September 2014.
Options explored for Sample 9
The following re-organisation options were identified for exploration in Sample Area 9:
9. A.
FEDERATION
Federation options to be explored as follows:
Option
referenc
e
9.A.1
Option description
Federate schools 1 (33 pupils), 2 (30 pupils) & 3 (44 pupils) to form a 107-pupil federation.
A 107-pupil school would be entitled to 4 classroom teachers. Allocating 4 teachers over the three locations would mean 2 teachers
at the site of school 3 and that the sites of schools 1 and 2 would become 1-teacher sites.
Two sites would make facilitate more equitable distribution of staff resources. Explore the federation on the basis of a 3-site and a
2-site scenario.
9.A.2
Federate schools 1 (33 pupils) and 2 (30 pupils) to form a 63-pupil federation. A 63-pupil school would be entitled to 3 classroom
teachers. Allocating 3 teachers over the two locations would mean 2 teachers at the site of school 1 and school 2 would become a
1-teacher site.
If single site federations were allowable it would make it possible to allocate the staff resources more equitably in this case.
247
9. B
INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils would affect school 4 (18 pupils). There are two small schools within
8km of school 4, namely a 16- pupil school to the east (off the map) which is 7.3km away and School 2 (30 pupils. Neither of
these schools is the closest school to School 4. If it did amalgamate with either of them, the resultant school would still be under
50 pupils. The closest school to School 4 is School D (211 pupils) which is 5.1km away. School D has a new building and could
accommodate the 18 pupils from School 4. An amalgamation of School 4 and School D is explored at 9.C.2.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils would affect schools 1, 2 and 3. It would not affect school 4 as it would
already have had to amalgamate under the 20-pupil threshold. In regard to schools 1, 2 and 3 they could respond to a 50-pupil
minimum threshold by federating. This federation is explored at 9.A.1
o
If Schools 1, 2 and 3 did not federate, following are other possibilities :
•
Schools 1 (33 pupils) and 2 (30 pupils) could federate or amalgamate with each other. The federation option is
identified for exploration at 9.A.2. The amalgamation option is identified for exploration at 9.C.1.
Or
School 2 (30 pupils) could amalgamate with School E (64 pupils (its closest school which is 4.9km away) to
form a 94-pupil 4-teacher school. This is explored at 9.C.3
Or
School 1(33 pupils), School 2(30 pupils) and School E (64 pupils) could amalgamate with each other to form a
127-pupil 5-teacher school. This is explored at 9.C.4
Or
School 1 (33 pupils) could amalgamate with School B (85 pupils) which is 5.3km away to form a 118-pupil 5-teacher school.
248
Or
School 3 (44 pupils) has six schools within an 8km distance of it with which it could potentially amalgamate.
Three of these schools are large schools in a large town adjoining the sample area. The closest school to
school 3 is a 700-pupil school in this town and it is 4.8km away. The next closest at 5km away is School G (232
pupils). An amalgamation of school 3 and School G is explored at 9.C.5.
9. C
AMALGAMATION OPTIONS
Option
reference
Option description
9.C.1
Amalgamate school 1 (33 pupils) & school 2(30 pupils) to form a 63-pupil 3-teacher school on a singlesite and split-site basis.
9.C.2
Amalgamate school 4 (18 pupils) & school D (211 pupils) to form a 229-pupil 9-teacher school on a single
site basis.
9.C.3
Amalgamate school 2 (30 pupils) & school E (64 pupils) to form a 94-pupil 4-teacher school. Explore on a
single site and split-site basis.
9.C.4
Amalgamate school 1 (33 pupils), school 2 (30 pupils) & school E (64 pupils) to form a 127-pupil 5teacher school on a single site and 3-split site basis.
9.C.5
Amalgamate school 3 (44 pupils) & school G (232 pupils) to form a 276-pupil 11-teacher school. Explore
on a single site and split-site basis. Both School 3 and School G have had substantial capital investment
in recent years.
249
Sample 10 map
250
Sample 10 options
The population of the wider county this sample area is located in increased by 7.0% in the period 2002-2006, and by 9.4 % in the period
2006-2011.
Enrolment in the four schools in Sample area 10 has fallen from a total of 107 pupils collectively to 89 pupils between 2001 and 2011.
An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will remain stable in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 41 children in the age
cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 39 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
At current enrolment levels, the phased arrangements outlined in the Staffing Schedule for 2012-2014 will affect School 4. If the
enrolment level of School 4 remains at 16 pupils, it will become a 1-teacher school in September 2013.
Options explored for Sample 10
The following re-organisation options were identified for exploration in Sample Area 10:
10. A.
FEDERATION
Federation options to be explored as follows:
Option
reference
Option description
Federate schools 1 (22 pupils), 2 (33 pupils) and 4 (16 pupils) to form a 71-pupil federation on two sites (sites of 1 &
2) or one site, site of 2. As school 4 does not have the minimum 20 pupils required, it could not be considered for
inclusion as a stand-alone site and would have to close under this option.
10.A.1
A school of 71 pupils would be entitled to 3 classroom teachers. Allocating 3 teachers over the two locations would
mean 2 teachers at the site of school 2 (now 49 pupils) and 1 teacher at the site of school 1 (22 pupils).
10. B INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
251
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils would affect School 4 (16 pupils). There is just one school within 8km of
School 4, namely school 2 which is 5km away. School 4 would have to amalgamate with school 2 (33 pupils). This is explored
at 10.C.1.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils could affect schools 1 and 2.
o
School 4, the smallest school at 16 pupils would already have been amalgamated with school 2 under a 20 pupil threshold
(see 10.C.1).
o
School 3, the next smallest school at 21 pupils does not have another school within 8km of it and therefore would not be
affected by the increased threshold.
o
o
10. C
School 1 (22 pupils) has two schools within 8km of it, namely School 2 (now 49 pupils) which is 4.8km away and another
school which has 90 pupils and is outside the sample area (7.7km away) . School 2 would be affected also by the revised
minimum threshold. An amalgamation between school 1 and school 2 to form a 71-pupil school would mean that they
could both now meet a revised minimum viability of 50 pupils. This is explored at 10.C.2
The federation 10.A.1 of schools 1, 2 and 4 would also result in the schools meeting a 50-pupil increased minimum
viability threshold.
AMALGAMATION
Option
reference
10.C.1
10.C.2
Option description
Amalgamate school 4 (16 pupils) and School 2 (33 pupils) to form a 49-pupil 2-teacher school on a single
site basis (site of 2).
Amalgamate Schools 1 (22 pupils) and school 2 (now 49 pupils) to form a 71-pupil 3-teacher school on a
single site and split-site basis.
252
Sample 11 map
253
Sample 11 options
The population of the wider county this sample area is located in increased by 7.0% in the period 2002-2006, and by 9.4 % in the period
2006-2011.
Enrolment in the three schools in Sample area 11 has risen slightly from a total of 104 pupils collectively to 109 pupils between 2001
and 2011. An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census,
shows that the primary school population will increase slightly in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 212
children in the age cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 182 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years.
At current enrolment levels, the phased arrangements outlined in the Staffing Schedule for 2012-2014 will not affect school in the
sample area. Nevertheless, it should be noted that School 1 has been showing an enrolment decline over the past ten years. With a 20
pupil enrolment, it is exactly on the threshold for retention of its second teacher. Should enrolment decline by one pupil in 2013, the
school would be affected by the revised staffing schedule and would lose its second teacher post in 2014.
Options explored for Sample 11
The following re-organisation options were explored for Sample Area 11:
11. A FEDERATION
Federation options to be explored as follows:
Option
reference
Option description
Federate schools 1 (20 pupils), 2 (44 pupils) and 3 (41 pupils) to form a 105-pupil federation on either one, two or
three sites.
11.A.1
A school of 105 pupils would be entitled to 4 classroom teachers. At current enrolment levels, the allocation of 4
teachers over the three locations would mean 2 teachers at the site of school 2 (44 pupils) and 1 teacher each at
the site of school 1 (20 pupils) and school 3 (44 pupils). A two-site or a single site federation would facilitate
more equitable distribution of staff resources.
254
11. B INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils would affect the three schools. Possible responses are:
o
The three schools could federate. This is explored at 11.A.1.
Or
o
11. C
The three schools could amalgamate. This is explored at 11.C.1.
AMALGAMATION
Option
reference
11.C.1
Option description
Amalgamate school 1 (20 pupils), School 2 (44 pupils) and School 3 (41 pupils) to form a 105-pupil 4teacher school.
A 105-pupil school would be entitled to 4 classroom teachers. At current enrolment levels, the allocation of
4 teachers over the three locations would mean 2 teachers at the site of school 2 (44 pupils) and 1 teacher
each at the site of school 1 (20 pupils) and school 3 (44 pupils). A two-site or a single site amalgamation
would facilitate more equitable distribution of staff resources. Explore on the basis of one, two or three
sites.
255
Sample 12 map
256
Sample 12 options
The population of the wider county this sample area is located in increased by 11.2% in the period 2002-2006, and by 10.0 % in the
period 2006-2011.
Enrolment in the four schools in Sample area 12 has fallen from a total of 152 pupils collectively to 110 pupils between 2001 and 2011.
An analysis of the primary school-going age cohorts living in the vicinity of these schools, according to the 2011 census, shows that the
primary school population will increase slightly in the medium term. This is evidenced by the fact that there were 83 children in the age
cohort of 1 year to 4 years while there were 50 children in the age cohort of 9 years to 12 years. If the enrolment in Small School 2
remains at 16 pupils, it will become a 1-teacher school in September 2013.
This is a quite isolated rural area. The closest school to School 3 (apart from the schools on the map) is 19.5km away, in a northwesterly direction off the map. The closest school to school 4 (apart from the schools on the map) is 12.5km away in a north-easterly
direction off the map.
The following re-organisation options were explored in Sample Area 12:
12. A FEDERATION
Federation option to be explored as follows:
Option
reference
21.A.1
Option description
Federate schools 1 (35 pupils), 2 (16 pupils) and 3 (26 pupils) to form a 77 pupil-federation s on two sites (sites of
schools 1 and 3). Assume the 16 pupils from school 2 enrol in school 1 to form a unit of 51 pupils.
A 77-pupil school would be entitled to 3 classroom teachers. At current enrolment levels, the allocation of the 3
teachers over the two locations would mean 2 teachers at the site of school 1 (51 pupils) and 1 teacher at the site of
school 3 (26 pupils).
12. B INCREASE MINIMUM VIABILITY THRESHOLD
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 12 pupils would not affect any of the schools in the sample.
257
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 20 pupils would affect school 2. There is only one school within 8km of it, namely
school 1. An increased threshold would mean school 2 would have to amalgamate with school 1 on the site of school 1. This
amalgamation is explored at 12.C.2.
Federation 1.A.1 effectively meets the increased threshold in respect of school 2.
•
Increase of minimum viability threshold to 50 pupils would affect schools 1,2 and 3 as follows:
o The three schools could agree to federate and form a 77-pupil school. This is explored at 12.A.1.
Or
The three schools would agree to amalgamate and form a 77 pupil school. This is explored at 12.C.1.
o
Or
Assume school 2 had already amalgamated with school 1 to from a 51 pupil school following the adoption of a 20 pupil
minimum threshold. This school would now be just above the new minimum threshold of 50 pupils and therefore would not
be affected by it. However, school 3 (25 pupils) only has one school within 8km of it and that school is school 1 (now 51
pupils). School 3 would have to close and federate/amalgamate with school 1 and form a 77 pupil school. This is
effectively the federation option 12.A.1 / amalgamation option 12.C.1.
School 4 (25 pupils) would be affected by a revised 50 pupil viability threshold. There is only one school within Group 3
within 8km of school 4. That is school A (51 pupils) which is 4.8km away. School 4’s only option would be to amalgamate
with School A and form a 76-pupil 3-teacher school. This amalgamation is explored on a same-site and split-site basis at
12.C.3.
12. C
AMALGAMATION
Option
reference
Option description
12.C.1
Amalgamate schools 1 (35 pupils), 2 (16 pupils) & 3 (26 pupils) to form a 77-pupil 3-teacher school.
Explore on a single-site and split-site basis (sites of schools 1 and 3)
12.C.2
Amalgamate school 1 (35 pupils) and school 2 ( 16 pupils) to form a 51-pupil 2-teacher school on the site of
school a
12.C.3
Amalgamate school 4 (25 pupils) & school A (51 pupils) to form a 76-pupil 3-teacher school. Explore on a single
site and a split-site basis.
258
12.C.4
Amalgamate school 1 (35 pupils), school 4 (25 pupils) & school A (51 pupils) to form a 111-pupil 4-teacher school
259
Appendix 6:
Detail of exploration of amalgamation options
Amalgamation was an option in all twelve sample areas.
53 basic amalgamations were identified. Every amalgamation option was explored on a
single-site basis and, if it appeared possible, on a 2-site or 3-site basis also.
Table 6X.1 summarises the options explored and identifies whether they were explored on a
1-site, 2-site or 3-site basis.
Table 6X.2 outlines a summary of the net annual savings from the amalgamation options.
260
Table 6X.1
Sample area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Totals
Overview of the 53 amalgamations
Reference for
Amalgamation
1.C.1
1.C.2
1.C.3
1.C.4
1.C.5
1.C.6
2.C.1
2.C.2
2.C.3
3.C.1
3.C.2
3.C.3
3.C.4
3.C.5
3.C.6
4.C.1
4.C.2
4.C.3
4.C.4
5.C.1
5.C.2
5.C.3
5.C.4
6.C.1
6.C.2
6.C.3
6.C.4
6.C.5
6.C.6
6.C.7
7.C.1
7.C.2
7.C.3
7.C.4
7.C.5
8.C.1
8.C.2
Identity of schools
in the amalgamation
4&C
1,2,3 & B
2,4 & C
2&3
1&B
2&B
1,2 & 3
3,4 & A
4 & 23-pupil school
1 & 56-pupil school
1&2
2&3
5 & 88-pupil school
3,4 & B
1,2 5 & C
3&C
1&A
2 & 42-pupil school
1,2 & A
1&C
3&B
4 & 44-pupil school
2&F
5&6
2&5
3&4
7&B
2,5 & 6
2,3 & 4
8&A
3,4 & 5
1&2
1,2 & A
3 & 82-pupil school
4&5
3&4
8.C.3
8.C.4
1&2
√
√
√
5&A
1,5 & A
1&2
4&D
2&E
1,2 & E
3&G
2&4
1&2
1,2 & 3
1,2 & 3
1&2
4&A
1,4 & A
126 schools
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
53 single
site cases
√
√
√
8.C.5
8.C.6
9.C.1
9.C.2
9.C.3
9.C.4
9.C.5
10.C.1
10.C.2
11.C.1
12.C.1
12.C.2
12.C.3
12.C.4
53
amalgamations
1 site
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
4 & 191-pupil school & 73
pupil school
2 site
3 site
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
4 & 191-pupil school & 73
pupil school
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
31
two-site
cases
√
9 threesite cases
261
Table 6X.2
Sample
area
1
2
3
4
5
6
Option
Reference
Amalgamation options : Overview of net annual savings
Identity of
Schools explored
for amalgamation
No of
pupils
1 site
2 site
1.C.1
4&C
81
€90,844
1.C.2
1,2,3 & B
100
€107,286
1.C.3
2,4 & C
99
€15,715
1.C.4
2&3
32
92,244
1.C.5
1&B
70
€8,124
1.C.6
2&B
102
€79,649
2.C.1
1,2 & 3
88
€152,642
2.C.2
3,4 & A
102
€168,873
2.C.3
4 & 23-pupil school
35
€104,244
3.C.1
1 & 56-pupil school
66
€92,124
3.C.2
1&2
54
€92,244
3.C.3
2&3
90
- €7,911
€24,489
3.C.4
5 & 88-pupil school
112
€149,533
€159,613
3.C.5
3,4 & B
109
€141,013
€167,933
3.C.6
1,2 5 & C
139
€217,746
4.C.1
3&C
146
€78,908
€85,328
4.C.2
1&A
287
€76,198
€83,838
4.C.3
2 & 42-pupil school
82
€63,773
€87,613
4.C.4
1,2 & A
327
€134,211
€163,811
5.C.1
1&C
106
€79,249
€67,089
5.C.2
3&B
92
- €11,251
€14,889
5.C.3
4 & 44-pupil school
75
€74,113
€87,613
5.C.4
2&F
82
€151,073
€159,613
6.C.1
5&6
38
€87,744
€83,844
6.C.2
2&5
54
€159,613
€159,613
6.C.3
3&4
80
€65,413
€87,613
6.C.4
7&B
96
€71,929
€86,889
6.C.5
2,5 & 6
71
€161,337
€175,357
6.C.6
2,3 & 4
113
€131,142
6.C.7
8&A
98
€56,129
3 site
€113,886
€174,502
€179,133
€87,373
€171,451
€174,502
€88,169
262
Amalgamation options – net annual savings (contd.)
Sample
area
7
8
Option
Reference
Identity of
Schools
explored for
amalgamation
No of
pupils
7.C.1
3,4 & 5
96
€147,382
7.C.2
1&2
63
€14,784
7.C.3
1,2 & A
141
€100,551
7.C.4
109
€73,149
€86,889
7.C.5
3 & 82-pupil
school
4&5
69
€74,233
€87,613
8.C.1
3&4
31
€24,013
8.C.2
4 & 191-pupil
school & 73
pupil school
1&2
283
€79,864
63
€84,253
8.C.3
8.C.4
1 site
2 site
3 site
€174,502
€87,613
295
€68,993
8.C.5
4 & 191-pupil
school & 73
pupil school
5&A
129
€58,013
€87,613
8.C.6
1,5 & A
153
€132,537
€162,237
€172,217
€142,617
9.C.1
4&D
63
€78,853
9.C.2
2&E
229
€81,084
9.C.3
1,2 & E
94
€93,489
9.C.4
3&G
127
€135,318
9.C.5
2&4
276
€67,213
10.C.1
1&2
49
€88,475
10.C.2
1,2 & 3
71
€83,493
€87,613
11
11.C.1
1,2 & 3
105
€122,002
€175,702
12
12.C.1
1&2
77
€164,128
€173,768
12.C.2
4&A
51
€84,875
12.C.3
1,4 & A
76
€79,193
12.C.4
3,4 & 5
111
€142,,582
53
amalgamations
126 schools
9
10
Totals
53 single site
cases
€87,613
€110,889
€174,502
€62,093
€174,502
€87,613
€174,502
31
two-site
cases
9 threesite cases
263
Following is some commentary on each basis of amalgamation:
Savings from single site-amalgamations
It was possible to explore all 53 amalgamations on a single-site basis.
The average no of pupils in a single-site amalgamation was 109 pupils.
In order to aid analysis the net savings in the single-site amalgamation cases can be divided
into three sub-groups:
Negative savings or small savings (ranging from an additional cost of
Sub-group 1:
about €15,000 per annum to a saving of up to €30,000 per annum.
Sub-group 2:
annum.
Savings ranging from over €30,000 per annum to up to €120,000 per
Sub-group 3:
annum
Savings ranging from over €120,000 per annum to up to €225,000 per
Sub-group 1 are cases where there are no teaching posts saved as a result of the
amalgamation. The cases of 3.C.3 and 5.C.2 are very similar in that each of them is an
amalgamation of two 2-teacher schools with relatively high enrolments. A split -site
amalgamation in both cases would result in a small annual saving. A single-site
amalgamation in both cases results in potential additional annual cost due to possible school
transport costs incurred as a result of the amalgamation. 1. C.5 is an amalgamation of a
small school (under 20 pupils) with a 2-teacher school with very high enrolment. The
amalgamated school would be due 3 teachers and the single-site amalgamation incurs
potential additional costs in terms of transport. As a result there is no staff saving and there is
potential additional transport cost. 8. C.1 is an amalgamation of two 1-teacher schools. The
resultant school is due two teachers and there are potential additional transport costs.
Hence there are no staff savings and there are potential additional transport costs.
Sub-group 2 are cases where there is one teaching post saved as a result of the
amalgamation. In the cases where there is an annual saving of €30,000 to €75,000 all the
amalgamations involve at least one 2-teacher school. Of the twenty-one cases where the
saving extends from €75,000 to €120,000 there are eleven cases involving a 1-teacher
school. These are 6.C.1, 8.C.2, 9.C.2, 10.C.1, 12.C.2, 1.C.1, 1.C.4, 2.C.3, 3.C.1, 3.C.2 and
7.C.3 .It should be noted that in two of these eleven cases, namely 8.C.2 and 7.C.3, the
amalgamation is of 3 schools).
Sub-group 3 are cases where the amalgamation results in the saving of two (or more)
teaching posts. This sub-group consists of twelve cases where the amalgamation involves
three schools and three cases where the amalgamation involves two schools. The final case,
sample 3.C.6 is an amalgamation of four schools which resulted in the saving of three
teaching posts.
Table 6X.3 outlines the net annual savings from the single-site amalgamations and the subgroups into which the savings fall.
264
Table 6X.3
Savings
Band
→
-€15k to
€0
Net annual savings (€000) from the 54 single-site amalgamations (assuming maximum take-up for school transport)
0 to
€15k
€15k
to
€30k
2
2
€30 k
to
€45k
€45k
to
€60k
€60k
to
€75k
€75k
to
€90k
2
8
13
€90k
to
€105k
€105k
to
€120k
€120k
to
€135k
€135k
to
€150k
€150
k to
€165
k
€165k
to
€180k
€180
k to
€195
k
€195k
to
€210k
€210k
to
€225k
No of cases
→
2
0
7
3.C.3
1.C.5
1.C.3
6.C.7
4.C.3
1.C.6
1.C.1
5.C.2
7.C.2
8.C.1
8.C.5
5.C.3
4.C.1
6.C.3
1
1.C.2
4
5
5
4.C.4
3.C.4
2.C.1
1.C.4
6.C.6
3.C.5
5.C.4
4.C.2
2.C.3
8.C.6
7.C.1
6.C.2
6.C.4
5.C.1
3.C.1
11.C.1
9.C.4
6.C.5
7.C.4
6.C.1
3.C.2
12.C.4
Option
References
7.C.5
8.C.2
7.C.3
12.C.
1
8.C.4
8.C.3
9.C.3
→
9.C.5
9.C.1
1
0
0
2.C.2
3.C.6
9.C.2
10.C.1
10.C.2
12.C.2
12.C.3
Sub-Group 1 (6 cases)
Sub-Group 2 (31 cases)
1
Sub-Group 3 (16 cases)
265
Table 6X. 4
Savings
band →
Per pupil annual savings (in €'000) from the single site amalgamations (assuming maximum take-up in school transport)
€2400
to
€2600
€2600
to
€2800
€2800
to
€3000
-€200
to €0
0 to
€200
€200
to
€400
€400
to
€600
€600
to
€800
€800
to
€1000
€1000
to
€1200
€1200k
to
€1400
€1400k
to
€1600
€1600k
to
€1800
€1800
to
€2000
€2000
to
€2200
€2200
to
€2400
3.C.3
1.C.3
4.C.2
4.C.1
1.C.6
5.C.3
1.C.1
3.C.1
3.C.6
2.C.1
5.C.4
12.C.1
6.C.1
1.C.4
5.C.2
1.C.5
7.C.2
4.C,4
4.C.3
8.C.6
1.C.2
3.C.4
7.C.1
2.C.2
10.C.1
6.C.5
2.C.3
8.C.2
6.C.7
5.C.1
9.C.3
6.C.6
3.C.5
3.C.2
8.C.4
8.C.5
6.C.4
6.C.3
7.C.5
8.C.3
12.C.2
No of
cases →
Option
references
→
9.C.2
7.C.3
9.C.4
9.C.1
9.C.5
7.C.4
10.C.2
12.C.4
8.C.1
11.C.1
6.C.2
12.C.3
266
Table 6X.4 outlines the per pupil annual savings from the single-site amalgamations.
Comment on per-pupil annual savings
At one extreme, it is clear that some of the amalgamations have low per-pupil
savings and potentially could incur higher per –pupil costs than the current
arrangement. These include 3.C.3, 5.C.2, 1.C.3 and 1.C.5.with the lowest per-pupil
savings. In these cases, and in the case of 7.C.2, 8.C.2 4.C.1 and 8.C.1 there is no
teaching post saved as a result of amalgamation.
At the other extreme, where the per-pupil savings are high, (from €1,800 upwards
per pupil), there is either a saving of one or two teaching posts over a small
number of pupils. Hence, the per-pupil saving is high in these cases.
Capital
Of the 53 single-site amalgamations explored, it appears that in about half of all
cases, there would be a requirement for capital investment in the form of additional
classroom(s). In the other half of all cases, it would seem that capital investment
would not be necessary or else it is not clear whether it would be necessary or not.
Transport
All of the single-site amalgamations involve extra school transport costs. Overall, a
maximum 29% of the pupils involved in the 53 single-site amalgamations explored
could potentially have to avail of school transport (1,744 pupils out of 5,787 pupils). It
is not possible to be definitive as to the number of pupils that would have to avail of
transport because it depends on the distance from their home to the amalgamated
school. However, the outside figure would be 29%.
Savings from two site-amalgamations
34 amalgamations were explored on a 2-site basis.
The average number of pupils in the 2-site amalgamations was 119 pupils.
The average per-pupil saving in the two-site amalgamations is €963 per pupil.
The net average annual saving per amalgamation was €114,529.
The averages mask a considerable range. The highest per pupil saving is in the case
of 6.C.2 which is €2,956 per pupil. The lowest is 1.C.3 which is €149 per pupil. In the
case of 6.C.2 the amalgamation involved two 2-teacher schools and when they
amalgamate they would still only be a 2-teacher school of 54 pupils. Hence, there is
a saving of two teaching posts across 54 pupils and that explains why the saving is
so high. In the case of 1.C.3, this amalgamation involved a small school of 10 pupils
distributing pupils in such a way that an adjoining school could gain two pupils in
order to become a 2-teacher school. Effectively, in this case, the saving from closing
the 10 pupil school is largely negated by the fact that a nearby school was able to
gain a teacher as a result.
Savings from two–site amalgamations of small schools equate to federation
It should be noted that the saving accruing from a two-site amalgamation of two small
schools is the exact same as federating the two small schools with a teaching
principal.
Five of the two-site amalgamations of small schools have the exact same net annual
saving, namely €87,613 per annum. The five cases are shaded in Table 9.16 (5.C.3,
6.C.3, 7.C.5, 8.C.3 and 9.C.1). The €87,613 is composed as follows:
1 teaching post
1 Principal allowance
1 Special duties allowance for a 2-teacher school
14 Teaching Principal Release days
0.2 of a GAM/EAL Resource teacher
Total
€60,000
€ 9,310
€ 3,769
€ 2,534
€12,000
€87,613
267
Table 6X.5
Savings
band →
No of
cases →
-€15k
to €0
0 to
€15k
€15k
to
€30k
1
1
5.C.2
3.C.3
Option
references
→
Sub-Group 1
€30 k
to
€45k
€45k
to
€60k
Net annual savings (in €'000) from the two-site amalgamations
€60k
to
€75k
€75k
to
€90k
2
13
5.C.1
9.C.5
10.C.2
4.C.1
4.C.2
4.C.3
5.C.3
6.C.1
6.C.3
6.C.4
6.C.7
7.C.4
7.C.5
8.C.3
8.C.5
9.C.1
10.C.1
12.C.3
€90k
to
€105k
2
7.C.3
Sub-Group 2
€105k
to
€120k
2
1.C.2
9.C.3
€120k
to
€135k
€135k
to
€150k
1
8.C.6B
€150k to
€165k
5
3.C.4
4.C.4
5.C.4
6.C.2
8.C.6 A
€165k
to
€180k
€180k
to
€195k
€195k to
€210k
5
2.C.2
3.C.5
6.C.5
11.C.1
12.C.1
Sub-group 3
268
€210
to
€225
Table 6X.6
Option
Ref
Pupil distribution in two-site amalgamations
No of pupils
in the
amalgamated
school
No of
schools
Pupil distribution of the
two sites in the
amalgamation
No of classroom teachers
based on number of
pupils in the
amalgamated school
1.C.2
100
4
70,30
4
2.C.2
102
3
69,33
4
3.C.3
90
2
54,36
4
3.C.4
112
2
88,24
4
3.C.5
109
3
73,36
4
4.C.1
146
2
125,21
6
4.C.2
287
2
265,22
12
4.C.3
82
2
42,40
3
4.C.4
327
3
287,40
13
5.C.1
106
2
84,22
4
5.C.4
82
2
59,23
3
5.C.2
92
2
53,39
4
5.C.3
75
2
44,31
3
6.C.2
54
2
33,21
2
6.C.3
80
2
41,39
3
6.C.4
96
2
68,28
4
6.C.5
71
3
38,33
3
6.C.7
98
2
56,42
4
7.C.3
141
3
78,63
5
7.C.4
109
2
82,27
4
7.C.5
69
2
36,33
3
8.C.3
63
2
39,24
3
8.C.5
129
2
89,40
5
8.C.6
153
3
129,24
5
9.C.1
63
2
33,30
3
9.C.3
94
2
64,30
4
9.C.5
276
2
232,44
11
10.C.2
71
2
49,22
3
11.C,1
105
3
44,61
4
12.C,1
77
3
51,26
3
12.C.3
76
2
51,25
3
269
Capital
In general, the two-site amalgamations did not necessitate capital investment.
Transport
The two-site amalgamations did not result in significant additional pupils having to
avail of school transport. Overall, a maximum of 7% of pupils involved in 2-site
amalgamations may be entitled to avail of school transport as a result of the
amalgamation. In all cases, the reason for the possible entitlement to school
transport relates to the fact that these particular 2-site amalgamations involved three
schools. Effectively one of the schools closed because it did not have the minimum
required 20 pupils to be a stand-alone site and there could then emerge a
requirement to transport the pupils to the amalgamated school.
270
Appendix 7:
Detail of exploration of federation option
Following is some commentary on the findings as they relate to three key factors in the
federated model, namely:
•
•
•
Number of sites in a federation
Teaching Principal or an administrative Principal
Group all the schools in the federation for staffing purposes or treat each of
them as if they were an independent school
Factor 1: Number of sites in a federation
The samples yielded two-site, three-site and four-site federations. Table 7.X.1
summaries the options and whether they were explored on a 2-site, 3-site or 4-site
basis.
Following is some commentary on 2-site, 3-site and 4-site federations:
Two-site federations
In all the ten sample areas where federation was identified as an option, two-site
federations were an option in all of them. The average pupil numbers in the two-site
federations was 80 pupils.
In total, there were seventeen two-site federations identified in the ten sample areas.
Twelve of these were explored on a 2-site basis only and five federations were
explored on a 2-site and on a 3-site basis
Three-site federations
Three-site federations were identified as a possibility in six of the sample areas.
These were all areas where there were at least three small schools within a close
distance of each other and where all three schools had enrolment of over 20 pupils.
The average pupil size was 100 pupils.
Four-site federations
The possibility of a four-site federation was identified only in one of the sample areas,
sample area 6. This sample area had the highest concentration of small schools out
of all the samples. Two four-site federation possibilities were identified in the area.
271
Table 7X.1
Sample
area
1
Reference for
Federation option
identified
Summary of the federations (20 in total)
Small schools
to be
federated
1,2 & 3
2
2.A.2
1,3 & 4
3.A.1
1,2 & 3
3.A.2
1,2 & 5
3
√
4 site
√
√
√
√
No federation options identified (schools too distant). Therefore, explore amalgamation
5.A.1
1,3 & 4
√
5.A.2
4 & a 44-pupil
school off the
map
√
6.A.1
2,3 & 4
6.A.2
2,5 & 6
6.A.3
2,3,4 & 5
6.A.4
3&4
6.A.5
2,3 4 & 5
7.A.1
3,4 & 5
7.A.2
4&5
8.A.1
1,2 & 3
8.A.2
1&2
9.A.1
1,2 & 3
9.A.2
1&2
10
10.A.1
1,2 & 4
11
11.A.1
1,2 & 3
12
12.A.1
1,2 & 3
√
47 schools
17 two-site
federations
5
6
3 site
No federation options identified (schools too small). Therefore, explore amalgamation
2.A.1
4
2 site
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
7
8
9
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
6 three-site
federations
2 four-site
federations
272
Factor 2: Teaching Principal or Administrative Principal
The federated model proposed by the Committee envisages a federated school of a
minimum 50 pupils distributed in two or more locations some kilometres apart. The
school would have one Principal. A school Principal has specific responsibilities in
the areas of leadership, teaching and learning, resource management, human
resource management, policy formation, administration and external relationships
.The Education Act, 1998 (Sections 22 and 23) outlines these functions. Demands
would clearly increase in the case of a school operating in two or more locations,
particularly in a case where the Principal is also a class teacher.
Generally, an administrative Principal is appointed when a school’s enrolment
reaches 178 pupils, the appointment threshold for the eighth teacher. In recognition of
the responsibilities of the post of Principal and the increased complexity as a result of
two or more locations, it was decided to explore all federations on the basis of a
teaching Principal and on the basis of an administrative Principal. This was explored
irrespective of the number of pupils or locations involved, to identify what the effect
would be on running costs.
Factor 3:
Group all the schools in the federation for staffing purposes or treat each
of them as if they were an independent school
In order to improve efficiency of provision, the basis on which Federation was devised
is to group together all the schools involved together for staffing purposes.
Notwithstanding this, it became evident that in a number of federations that it would
be challenging to allocate equitably the staff to which the federation is entitled given
the pupil distribution and the overall number of staff. For this reason, it was decided
also to explore the effect of allocating the staff based on the entitlement of each site
under the staffing schedule.
Savings from federations
It is necessary to overlay the factors of the number of sites in a federation, whether
the federation has a teaching Principal or an administrative Principal and whether the
schools in the federation are grouped as one unit or treated as separate units for
staffing purposes.
Following is a separate examination of two-site, three-site and four-site federations.
Savings from two site federations
Taking two-site federations first, the federation savings need to be analysed based
on:
(a)
teaching Principal or an administrative Principal
and
(b)
staff allocation based on the combined enrolment of the
schools involved or separate minimum allocation to each
site.
Tables 7X.2 and 7.X.3 summarise the savings for 2-site federations as follows:
Table 7X.2 outlines the net annual savings identified for the combinations of (a) and
(b) for each 2-site federation.
Table 7X.3 outlines the per pupil annual savings for the combinations of (a) and (b)
for each 2-site federation.
273
Table 7X.2
2- site federations (17 )
Net annual savings (calculated assuming maximum uptake of school transport)
Teaching Principal
Reference
for
Federation
options
identified
2.A.1
Small
schools
federated
1,2 & 3
No of
pupils
Allocate staff
based on
combined
enrolment
Allocate staff to
each site as if
independent
school
Administrative Principal
Allocate staff
based on
combined
enrolment
Allocate staff
to each site as
if independent
school
88
€165,802
€165,802
€109,060
-€37,225
2.A.2
1,3 & 4
64
€183,626
€123,626
€126,160
€6,160
3.A.1
1,2 & 3
90
€107,133
€107,133
€50,391
€50,391
3.A.2
1,2 & 5
78
€179,857
€107,133
€122,391
€50,391
5.A.1
1,3 & 4
92
€173,582
€101,582
€116,840
€42,555
5.A.2
4 & a 44pupil
school off
the map
75
€87,613
€14,569
€17,827
-€42,173
6.A.2
2,3 & 4
71
€175,357
€103,633
€117,891
€45,891
6.A.4
2,5 & 6
80
€87,613
€14,889
€26,889
-€45,111
7.A.1
2,3,4 & 5
96
€169,402
€97,402
€112,660
€37,415
7.A.2
3&4
69
€87,613
€14,889
€30,147
-€41,853
8.A.1
2,3 4 & 5
75
€179,857
€95,133
€122,391
€50,391
8.A.2
3,4 & 5
63
€87,613
€15,613
€30,147
-€29,853
9.A.1
1,2 & 3
107
€165,742
€93,742
€109,000
€34,715
9.A.2
4&5
63
€87,613
€15,613
€18,147
-€53,853
10.A.1
1,2 & 3
71
€180,026
€107,302
€122,560
€38,560
11.A.1
1&2
105
€175,702
€103,702
€118,960
€44,675
12.A.1
1,2 & 3
77
€176,257
€103,533
€118,791
€46,791
1364
€2,470,408
€145,299
€1,385,296
€81,249
€1,470,252
€197,867
€86,485
€15,725
Total
Average per federation
80
274
Table 7X.3
2- site federations (17)
Per-pupil annual savings (calculated assuming maximum uptake of school transport)
Teaching Principal
Reference
for
Federation
options
identified
2.A.1
Small
schools
federated
1,2 & 3
No of
pupils
Allocate
staff based
on
combined
enrolment
88
€1,884
Allocate
staff to each
site as if
independent
school
Administrative Principal
Allocate
staff based
on
combined
enrolment
Allocate staff
to each site as
if independent
school
€1,884
€1,239
-€423
€96
2.A.2
1,3 & 4
64
€2,869
€1,932
€1,971
3.A.1
1,2 & 3
90
€1,190
€1,190
€560
3.A.2
1,2 & 5
78
€2,306
€1,374
€1,569
€646
5.A.1
1,3 & 4
92
€1,887
€1,104
€1,270
€463
5.A.2
4 & a 44pupil
school off
the map
75
€1,168
€194
€238
-€562
6.A.2
2,3 & 4
71
€2,470
€1,446
€1,660
€646
6.A.4
2,5 & 6
80
€1,095
€186
€336
-€564
7.A.1
2,3,4 & 5
96
€390
3&4
69
€1,065
€216
€1,174
7.A.2
€1,765
€1,270
€437
-€607
8.A.1
2,3 4 & 5
75
€2,398
€1,268
€1,632
€672
8.A.2
3,4 & 5
63
€1,391
€248
€479
9.A.1
1,2 & 3
107
€1,549
€876
€1,019
€324
9.A.2
4&5
63
€1,391
€248
€288
-€855
10.A.1
1,2 & 3
71
€2,536
€1,511
€1,726
€543
11.A.1
1&2
105
€1,673
€988
€1,133
€425
12.A.1
1,2 & 3
77
€2,289
€1,811
€1,532
€1,015
€1,543
Average per pupil
savings
1364
€1,078
€560
-€474
€608
€196
275
Of the 17 two-site federations explored, in five cases they are federations of two schools
only. These are identified by the shaded lines (in Table 7X.2 and Table 7X.3) and their
references are as follows: 5.A.2, 6.A.4, 7.A.2, 8.A.2 and 9.A.2. The level of savings from
these cases is lower compared with the other twelve cases. If one excludes the federations
of two schools, it is clear that the savings from the 3 school cases are much higher. Table
7X.4 and Table 7X.5 outline the position in regard to savings arising from creating 2-site
federations from three schools (on a net annual basis and on a per pupil basis).
Table 7X.4
2- site federations involving 3 schools (12 cases )
Overview of annual net savings (calculated using maximum possible transport costs)
Teaching Principal
Reference
for
federation
option
identified
2.A.1
Small
schools
federated
1,2 & 3
No of
pupils
88
2.A.2
1,3 & 4
64
3.A.1
1,2 & 3
90
3.A.2
1,2 & 5
78
5.A.1
1,3 & 4
92
6.A.2
2,3 & 4
71
7.A.1
2,3,4 & 5
96
8.A.1
2,3 4 & 5
75
9.A.1
1,2 & 3
107
10.A.1
1,2 & 3
71
11.A.1
1&2
105
12.A.1
1,2 & 3
77
Total
Average per federation
Allocate staff
based on
combined
enrolment
Allocate staff to
each site as if
independent
school
Administrative Principal
Allocate staff
based on
combined
enrolment
Allocate staff
to each site as
if independent
school
€165,802
€165,802
€109,060
-€37,225
€183,626
€123,626
€126,160
€6,160
€107,133
€107,133
€50,391
€50,391
€179,857
€107,133
€122,391
€50,391
€173,582
€101,582
€116,840
€42,555
€175,357
€102,633
€117,891
€45,891
€169,402
€97,402
€112,660
€37,415
€179,857
€95,133
€122,391
€50,391
€165,742
€93,742
€109,000
€34,715
€180,026
€107,302
€122,560
€38,560
€175,702
€103,702
€118,960
€44,675
€176,257
€103,533
€118,791
€46,791
1014
€169,362
€109,060
€112,258
€34,226
276
Table 7X. 5
2- site federations involving 3 schools (12 cases )
Overview of annual per pupil savings (calculated using maximum possible transport costs)
Teaching Principal
Reference
for
federation
option
identified
2.A.1
Small
schools
federated
1,2 & 3
No of
pupils
Allocate
staff based
on
combined
enrolment
Allocate
staff to each
site as if
independent
school
Administrative Principal
Allocate
staff based
on
combined
enrolment
Allocate staff
to each site as
if independent
school
88
€1,884
€1,884
€1,239
-€423
€96
2.A.2
1,3 & 4
64
€2,869
€1,932
€1,971
3.A.1
1,2 & 3
90
€1,190
€1,190
€560
3.A.2
1,2 & 5
78
€2,306
€1,374
€1,569
€646
5.A.1
1,3 & 4
92
€1,887
€1,104
€1,270
€463
6.A.2
2,3 & 4
71
€2,470
€1,446
€1,660
€646
7.A.1
2,3,4 & 5
96
€1,765
€1,065
€1,174
€390
8.A.1
2,3 4 & 5
75
€2,398
€1,268
€1,632
€672
9.A.1
1,2 & 3
107
€1,549
€876
€1,019
€324
10.A.1
1,2 & 3
71
€2,536
€1,511
€1,726
€543
11.A.1
1&2
105
€1,673
€988
€1,133
€425
12.A.1
1,2 & 3
77
€2,289
€1,532
€1,543
€2,004
€1,291
€1,328
€560
€608
Average per pupil savings
€405
A positive saving is now evident across all options, with the exception of the case of 2.A.1
where an administrative Principal is appointed and the staff are allocated based on the
number of pupils in each site. The reason there is an extra expense in this case is that the
three schools in Federation 2.A.1 are three 2-teacher schools prior to federation. So, if they
continue to be staffed based on the enrolment per site they would continue to have six
teachers between them and the option assumes an administrative Principal as well. That
brings the staffing to seven teachers (one above the current situation).
Federation 3.A.1 has a lower level of savings than the other cases. This is because 3.A.1 is a
federation of three schools which have five teachers between them prior to federation. If they
federated onto two sites with a teaching Principal, each site would be due two teachers which
277
gives a total of four teachers. Thus a teaching post is saved under the teaching Principal
option. Under the administrative Principal option, this post is not saved – hence the lower net
saving.
The twelve federations involving 3 schools onto two sites (outlined in Table 7X.4 and Table
7X.5) essentially incorporate one closure. All of these federations involve an element of
school transport and the maximum possible transport costs are factored in. Clearly, the
higher the number of pupils in the school being closed, the greater the cost of school
transport. The pupil enrolment in the school being closed is shown in column B in Table 7X.6:
Table 7X.6
Option
Ref
Two-site federations incorporating a closure
A
B
No of
pupils in
the
federation
No of pupils in
the school
being closed
C
D
E
Pupil distribution
of the two sites in
the federation
No of classroom
teachers based on
overall enrolment
(column A)
Pupil
distribution
where there
are three
sites
2.A.1
88
21
36, 52
4
2.A.2
64
12
31, 33
3
3.A.1
90
12
36, 54
4
3.A.2
78
12
36, 42
3
5.A.1
92
22
31, 61
4
6.A.2
71
17
33, 38
3
7.A.1
96
27
33, 63
4
8.A.1
75
12
24, 51
3
9.A.1
107
30
44, 63
4
10.A.1
71
16
22, 49
3
11.A.1
105
20
44, 61
4
12.A.1
77
16
26, 51
3
21,31,36
22,31,39
27,33,36
30,33,44
20,41,44
In the case of the options highlighted in bold text , given the ground rules for federation that
specify a site must have a minimum of 20 pupils, there was no choice except to explore the
federation option in these samples on the basis of closure of a school with less than 20 pupils.
Effectively, in these samples, the schools with enrolment of less than 20 pupils could not form
an ongoing part of a federation and would have to close.
Distribution of pupils in two-site federations
The distribution of pupils in a federation makes it challenging to distribute staff
equitably between sites. Column D in Table 7X.6 indicates the number of classroom
teachers the federated school would be due under the schedule of enrolment
governing the appointment and retention of mainstream class teachers 2014/2015.
Column C and Column E outline the pupil distribution of the federations involved on a
two-site and three-site basis respectively. It can be seen that equitable distribution of
teaching resources to which a federation would be entitled is challenging in light of
the pupil distribution. This applies in the case of two sites (column C) (and indeed in
278
the case of three sites (column E) which are shown for information/comparison
purposes).
Savings from three-site federations
Taking three -site federations, the federation savings need to be analysed based on:
(a)
teaching Principal or an administrative Principal
and
(b)
staff allocation based on the combined enrolment of the
schools involved or separate minimum allocation to each
site.
Table 7X.7 outlines the net annual savings identified at (a) and (b) for each 3-site
federation. Table 7X.8 outlines the per pupil annual savings at (a) and (b) for each 3site federation
Table 7X.7
3- site federations (6)
Overview of annual net savings
(no additional transport costs necessitated by federation)
Teaching Principal
Reference
for
federation
option
identified
Small
schools
federated
2.A.1
1,2 & 3
5.A.1
1,3 & 4
6.A.1
No of
pupils
Allocate staff
based on
combined
enrolment
Allocate staff to
each site as if
independent
school
Administrative Principal
Allocate staff
based on
combined
enrolment
Allocate
staff to each
site as if
independent
school
88
€174,502
€27,493
€117,760
-€28,525
92
€174,502
€27,493
€117,760
-€28,525
2,3 & 4
113
€174,502
€27,493
€117,760
-€28,525
7.A.1
3,4 & 5
96
€174,502
€27,493
€117,760
-€28,525
9.A.1
1,2 & 3
107
€174,502
€27,493
€117,760
-€28,525
11.A.1
1,2 & 3
105
€174,502
€27,493
€117,760
-€28,525
€174,502
€27,493
€117,760
-€28,525
Average per federation
279
Table 7X.8
3- site federations (6)
Overview of annual per pupil savings
(no additional transport costs necessitated by federation)
Teaching Principal
Reference
for
federation
option
identified
Small
schools
federated
No of
pupils
Allocate staff to
each site as if
independent
school
Administrative Principal
€312
€1,338
Allocate
staff to each
site as if
independent
school
-€324
Allocate staff
based on
combined
enrolment
2.A.1
1,2 & 3
88
Allocate staff
based on
combined
enrolment
€1,983
5.A.1
1,3 & 4
92
€1,897
€299
€1,280
-€310
6.A.1
2,3 & 4
113
€1,544
€243
€1,042
-€252
7.A.1
3,4 & 5
96
€1,818
€286
€1,227
-€297
9.A.1
1,2 & 3
107
€1,631
€257
€1,101
-€267
11.A.1
1,2 & 3
105
€1,662
€262
€1,122
-€272
100
€1,755
€276
€1,185
- €287
Average per federation
Explanation for why the annual net savings are identical in the six 3-site federations
explored
The annual net savings for each scenario in the six 3-site federations explored are the same.
The reason for this is as follows:
Each of the six cases involves the federation of three 2-teacher schools. In all six cases, the
combined enrolment of the three schools lies between the band for appointing and retaining
four teachers, namely between 86 pupils and 114 pupils.
There are no transport costs involved.
The resources allocated to all of the schools in the federations are the same and the
resources they would receive in the event of federation are the same. Hence, the net savings
work out the same for each case. Following is a brief explanation of the resources allocated
to the federation under the four basic scenarios:
Federation involving a Teaching Principal with the teaching staff allocated based on combined
enrolment
•
•
•
•
•
•
4 teaching posts
1 Principal’s allowance of €9,310 for a school of up to 5 teachers
1 Deputy Principal’s allowance of €3,769 for a school of up to 5 teachers
3 capitation grants (each one being the minimum grant for a 60-pupil school), 3
ancillary services grants (each being the minimum grant for a 60-pupil school),
18 Teaching Principal Release days for a Principal in a school with 3 or 4
teachers
.8 of a resource teacher allocated under the General Allocation Model (based
on .2 of a post for each mainstream classroom teacher)
280
The net savings figure of €174,502 is composed as follows:
• 2 teaching posts
€120,000
• 2 Principal allowances
€ 18,620
• 3 special duties allowances
€ 11,307
• 1 Deputy Principal allowance
-€ 3,769
• 24 Teaching Principal release days € 4,344
• .4 of a post for GAM/EAL
€ 24,000
Total
€174,502
Federation involving a Teaching Principal with the teaching staff allocated to each site as if it
was an independent school
• 6 teaching posts
• 1 Principal’s allowance of €10,432 for a school of up to 7 teachers
• 1 Deputy Principal’s allowance of €4,932 for a school of up to 7 teachers
• 3 capitation grants (each one being the minimum grant for a 60-pupil school), 3
ancillary services grants (each being the minimum grant for a 60-pupil school),
• 22 Teaching Principal Release days for a Principal in a school with 5 or 6
teachers
• 1.2 of a resource teacher allocated under the General Allocation Model (based
on .2 of a post for each mainstream class teacher)
The net savings figure of €27,493 is composed as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
0 teaching posts
Principal allowances
3 special duties allowances
1 Deputy Principal allowance
20 Teaching Principal release days
.4 of a post for GAM/EAL
Total
€ 17,498
€ 11,307
-€ 4,932
€ 3,620
€ 24,000
€ 27,943
Federation involving an administrative Principal with the teaching staff allocated based on
combined enrolment
• 5 teaching posts
• 1 Principal’s allowance of €9,310 for a school of up to 5 teachers
• 1 Deputy Principal’s allowance of €3,769 for a school of up to 5 teachers
• 3 capitation grants (each one being the minimum grant for a 60-pupil school), 3
ancillary services grants (each being the minimum grant for a 60-pupil school),
• No Teaching Principal Release days because the Principal is now
administrative
• 1 resource teacher post allocated under the General Allocation Model (based
on .2 of a post for each mainstream class teacher )
The net savings figure of €117,760 is composed as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 teaching post
€ 60,000
Principal allowances
€ 18,620
3 special duties allowances
€ 11,307
1 Deputy Principal allowance
€ 3,769
42 Teaching Principal release days
€ 7,602
.4 of a post for GAM/EAL
€ 24,000
Total
€ 117,760
281
Federation involving an administrative Principal with the teaching staff allocated to each site
as if it was an independent school
• 7 teaching posts
• 1 Principal’s allowance of €10,432 for a school of up to 7 teachers
• 1 Deputy Principal’s allowance of €4,932 for a school of up to 7 teachers
• 3 capitation grants (each one being the minimum grant for a 60-pupil
school), 3 ancillary services grants (each being the minimum grant for a
60-pupil school),
• No Teaching Principal Release days because the Principal is now
administrative
• 1.4 of a resource teacher allocated under the General Allocation Model
(based on .2 of a post for each mainstream class teacher )
The net additional cost figure of €28,525 is composed as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 additional teaching post
Principal allowances
3 special duties allowances
1 Deputy Principal allowance
42 Teaching Principal release days
GAM/EAL allocation saving
Total
-€ 60,000
€ 17,498
€ 11,307
-€ 4,932
€ 7,602
€ 0
- € 28,525
Pupil distribution in three-site federations
In three-site federations, as in two-site federations, equitable distribution of teaching
resources would be a challenge in light of the pupil distribution. Table 9.11 illustrates this:
Table 7X.9
Three-site federations : Pupil distribution
A
B
C
D
No of pupils in
the federation
Pupil
composition of
the three sites
in the federation
Pupil
composition
of the two
sites in the
federation
No of classroom
teachers based
on overall
enrolment
(column A)
2.A.1
88
21, 31, 36
36, 52
4
5.A.1
92
22, 31, 39
31,61
4
6.A.1
113
33, 39, 41
7.A.1
96
27, 33, 36
Not explored
on a 2-site
basis
33,63
9.A.1
107
30, 33, 44
44,63
4
11.A.1
105
20, 41, 44
44,61
4
Option
Ref
4
4
282