I thank the Chairman for the invitation and her introduction. I agree wholeheartedly about the need to have a meaningful Estimates process. We have tried to do that in how we have presented them and have provided information on inputs, outputs and, where possible, outcomes. Through the Action Plan for Education process, we are trying to create a more meaningful environment in which outsiders can see what we are setting as priorities, how we are pursuing them and what we are measuring ourselves against in terms of what represents success. I am keen on this process. Having spent most of my time on that side of the counter, it is important that the Estimates process become more meaningful.
I will go through the basics. If all of the members have to hand my statement, I do not need to repeat it. We have a 5% increase in our budget - €465 million - this year. It comes after a difficult period. We lost a number of years during which investments that everyone would have liked to have been able to make in various ways were not possible. The demands for extra money are legion. It is a question of deciding which areas deserve priority and allocating the money as best we can.
Between last and next September, we will have 4,600 additional teachers. Most members will agree that these teachers are filling important gaps that emerged in our education services, for example, guidance counselling, a matter in which Deputy Byrne is interested. Some gaps arose in the field of special educational needs, in which respect we are this year providing for the introduction of a new resource allocation model. It was drawn up by the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and piloted in a number of schools and is a better and fairer way of allocating resources in an area of significant priority.
We also found additional money for the DEIS programme. For the first time, we have introduced a model based on statistical analysis. Under this, schools do not have to lodge applications. Instead, the number of pupils enrolling and the profiles of the areas from which they are drawn allow the Department to identify schools with the greatest concentrations of disadvantage. This has identified 79 new schools for which we are providing additional resources in order to include them in the programme and 30 schools have been upgraded from band 2 to band 1.
This is the start of a process. As is the experience of most Deputies, I know of plenty of schools that have not been included in the programme because the cut-off point for the 79 new schools was the highest level of concentration under the old model. It is our ambition to improve, refine and examine our instruments. For example, we are prioritising access to educational psychological services for DEIS schools.
In terms of special education, I should have mentioned that we are also trying to create an integrated support service, ISS, within the NCSE. We must build schools' capacity to manage children with special needs. The integrated service will be a significant addition. Deputies can see from the text the considerable investment in recent years in resource teachers and special needs assistants, SNAs. This has been a priority for me and the Department.
The difficult years also impacted on the middle management of schools. This year and last, we have started restoring middle management at deputy principal level and other posts. Undoubtedly, we must evolve a middle management structure that is fit for the 21st century. That work will take considerable time. A centre for school leadership has been established to support and provide leadership capacity building in schools. This is a priority area.
We are investing additional resources in the roll-out of the junior cycle. We have made provision for time off each year. It is the equivalent of 550 posts. This will allow teachers to have 22 hours off in the year to prepare for the introduction of the new junior cycle curricula, which require a different approach to teaching and learning. It is important that teachers get time to prepare - upskilling and professional development - and execute the new model. This issue is controversial for some but the direction the junior cycle is seeking to take the education system is the right one. It values a wider range of intelligences among participating pupils and does not rely exclusively on a memory test at the end of three years of study.
As we all know, higher education got no resources from the State for nine years. That has had a considerable impact. This year, we have been able to invest €36.5 million in third level and secured a commitment to the provision of an increase in the budget every year to reflect the significant growth in student numbers. The projection is for a 25% to 30% growth in the coming years.
Recently, we published a consultation document on the proposal to provide an additional €200 million through an Exchequer-employer mechanism to support the expansion of third level. The third element of the Cassells report, that of income-contingent payments for students, is being examined by this committee but we are not waiting for the outcome of that examination to proceed. We are making provision.
My final point will be on capital. Every year, we must create more than 20,000 additional places in primary and secondary levels. As the bulge moves from primary to secondary, the provision of those places becomes more expensive per unit, given that building costs are greater at secondary level than they are at primary. This is putting pressure on our budgets but we have a good record of proceeding with projects and building to high standards. I have had the privilege of seeing that. In terms of higher education, Grangegorman is the flagship project.
I will leave it at that and not take up the committee's time.
