Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1998 > Committee on Education and Science > Report No. 01 - Literacy Levels in Ireland

AN COMHCHOISTE UM OIDEACHAS AGUS EOLAÍOCHT

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Dé Céadaoin, 1 Aibreán, 1998.

Wednesday, 1 April, 1998.

The Joint Committee met at 9.40 a.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Deputy Michael Kitt (in the Chair)

Chairman: The committee received a letter from the National Adult Literacy Agency asking for an opportunity to make a presentation to this committee in relation to adult literacy. I welcome Ms Inez Bailey, acting director of NALA and ask her make a short presentation which will be followed by a question answer session.

Ms Bailey: The National Adult Literacy Agency is the co-ordinating, training and campaigning body for all those involved in adult literacy work in Ireland. Members include individual literacy students, tutors and organisers as well as voluntary group members, vocational education committees, libraries, trade unions, training workshops and centres for the unemployed. NALA was formally established in 1980 and since June 1985 has received a grant-in-aid from the Department of Education which enables the agency to staff a national office and provide a resource room. An executive committee is elected at our annual general meeting to ensure that the aims and objectives of the agency are put into practice. The agency also receives a small grant from the Department of Social, Family and Community Affairs.

NALA’s most important objectives are: to encourage the involvement of learners in all aspects of planning, organisation, assessment and research; to advise on acceptable standards of organisation and practice in literacy work; to develop training programmes which will ensure high quality literacy provision and to represent the views of all participants in adult literacy to Departments and other concerned agencies.

NALA welcomes the opportunity to appear before this committee and address the issue of adult literacy and we look forward to adult literacy provision taking its rightful place at the core of future policy and structures in adult education.

Investing in the adult literacy service provides parents and parents to be with an opportunity to improve their skill level and to develop a positive attitude to education. Parents are the first teachers, as recognised in the “Action Programme for the Millennium”. Therefore, it is important to go beyond just recognising the need for a continuum approach to appropriate second chance education. It is vital that a two pronged approach to literacy is fostered within the context of education policy. Without radical action in the area of adult literacy, the numbers of people with literacy difficulties is not likely to decrease as the vast majority of educational investment continues to be targeted toward expanding the system of initial education.

The need for literacy must be seen in the context of the culture and society in which we live. Thus rapidly changing economies and advances in technology in western industrialised countries require ever higher levels of literacy if people are to adapt and participate fully in society. NALA sees the continuing option to become literate as a fundamental educational and human right for all adults, and believes the acquisition of literacy skills to be a social responsibility, not an individual problem. Any society committed to creating equal opportunities for all its members must acknowledge that literacy skills are key tools for promoting access and participation. However, the interpretation of what it means “to become literate” is an important point of discussion. Literacy skills which would have been sufficient 50, 20 or even five years ago may not be adequate for the rest of one’s life. Life long learning means the option to return to education or training throughout life. This is particularly important during the present climate of rapid change where adults are constantly challenged by the new demands at work and in everyday life.

Definitions of literacy range from those which place a narrow focus on skill development to those which emphasise the importance of literacy as the enabling skills which help adults to exercise greater choice and control in their lives. NALA believes that all good adult literacy work starts with the needs of individuals. Literacy involves the integration of listening, speaking, reading, writing and numeracy. It also encompasses aspects of personal development-social, economic, emotional, cultural - and is concerned with improving self-esteem and building confidence. It goes far beyond mere technical skills of communication. The underlying aim of good literacy practice is to enable people to understand and reflect critically on their life circumstances with a view to exploring new possibilities and initiating constructive change.

It is important to dispel the old notion that individuals are either literate or illiterate. A more useful perspective would focus on the literacy needs of individuals at different times in their adult lives and the levels of literacy demanded by a rapidly changing environment. This approach places the value of literacy at the centre of any policy in adult education and development.

There is a wide range of groups who need literacy help. They include: current early school leavers; people who left school with no, or poor qualifications; young mothers with low educational attainment; unemployed people with literacy skills insufficient to allow them to take up further education or training opportunities and/or access employment; certain sections of the population in isolated rural areas or in areas of social and economic disadvantage; people who may have had adequate literacy skills when they left school, but who now find they need to build on these skills because of the increasingly complex literacy tasks required in today’s society which is otherwise known as deskilling.

In spite of the widespread acceptance of the role of education in tackling social and economic exclusion, there is a general lack of education offered to the less qualified in general and, in particular, to people with reading and writing difficulties. Exclusion of people with reading and writing difficulties from existing social and economic inclusion measures is paradoxical given the current climate. For example, it is difficult for those with reading and writing difficulties to participate in the Vocational Training Opportunities Scheme (VTOS), FÁS and CERT training for unemployed people.

I am aware that Members have already been briefed on the number of adults who have reading and writing difficulties. A NALA survey carried out in 1995 found that approximately 5,000 adults were currently receiving tuition in the 100 schemes around the country. Adult literacy schemes provide learner centred tuition on an individual and/or group basis to adults with reading and writing difficulties, who in the majority of cases, are experiencing disadvantage and poverty. This service is free of charge and is resourced in part by the VEC through funding from the Adult Literacy and Community Education budget. However, in order to meet current demand, 85 per cent of tuition is provided by volunteers. The management of the literacy schemes is the responsibility of the local literacy organiser.

Over two-thirds of literacy organisers, who play a key role in maintaining the service, are employed on a part-time and often temporary basis. We have at least ten volunteer literacy organisers. Currently no VEC has received their 1998 ALCE budget allocation which must be spent in 1998. As a result of this reliance on part-time workers and volunteers and an insufficient budget - approximately £4 million to be shared between 107 literacy schemes and community education projects throughout the country - adults can only access two hours tuition per week, which is equivalent to three full-time study weeks per annum. The rate of progress is severely affected by this situation, and in a recent report the majority of learners sampled requested additional tuition time. The lack of intensive literacy programmes and suitable progression options are clearly disincentives to participation.

NALA’s recent survey on participation in adult literacy schemes, indicated that of those attending tuition only 18.5 per cent were unemployed. An unemployed person is three times more likely to experience a low level of literacy compared to someone who is employed. Ireland out of 12 countries surveyed had the highest incidence of unemployment among people who scored at Level

A unique feature of adult literacy and basic education is the nature of the provision. People with reading and writing difficulties require both skills acquisition and also a development of their own capacity to learn and to believe in the benefits of education. This is a complex process that involves programmes that take into account individual needs of students, by specially trained tutors working in an adult friendly, student centred learning environment.

Literacy tuition also takes place in a range of other settings including Youthreach, Traveller centres, prisons and community training centres. Even though literacy provision is integrated into these programmes the majority of their participants who have literacy difficulties to begin with will leave these programmes with those difficulties remaining. There is also an increasing number of adult education programmes where the need for literacy tuition is being identified but there is still no recognition at policy level which would ensure that adults who have literacy difficulties are provided with a coherent, integrated educational service

While all public authorities recognise the importance of literacy, its necessity seems less obvious when one looks at the meagre means accorded to it. It is now time to provide a budget to address the literacy issue which is not only costly for the individual, but is also expensive in social and economic terms. Investment in literacy education will be cost effective in economic terms as well as crucial to the development of a just society.

Some of the recommendations needed to ensure a high quality literacy service would be made available would include educational guidance and counselling services. I know this committee discussed this issue yesterday. Another major issue is premises. A lot of adult literacy tuition takes place in wholly inadequate settings where people are expected to sit on baby chairs or use the only room available, namely the bathroom. There is a limited number of tuition options and learning programmes as only some centres can provide NCVA Foundation Certificate courses. More work needs to be done to ensure more centres can provide this course. The literacy service is not available throughout the year. Less than three schemes can provide all year round service. Most schemes close down for the entire summer. People can only get around three weeks full-time study per annum. There are no part-time, full-time or weekend courses available. In most centres provide either day or evening courses. In some centres you can avail of both day and evening but only a maximum of two hours tuition per week.

There are no work based literacy programmes One. There is an urgent need to develop strategies to reach this group.

available. Most European countries have them.

Most of the learning materials and resources appropriate to adults are being developed locally but there are no resources to put together appropriate books, etc. so most of the handout materials are photocopied and highly expensive. We need more paid literacy tutors and more volunteers.

We also need flexible teaching methods in recognition of multiple intelligences theory and the differing learning styles of individuals, with the active participation of learners in all aspects of the learning process. There should be recognition of the unique combination of technical and non-technical aspects of student needs. An ongoing education counselling service should be provided at the exit point so that students are guided towards appropriate progression routes. Literacy and basic education to be recognised as an integral component of all adult education and training programmes as appropriate.

In relation to the essential organisation and support services we are looking for paid workers and more volunteers. We also need support for these two groups of people in terms of full-time organisers, tutor trainers and group tutors.

There is a major problem with access to literacy schemes with around 1 per cent of all those with literacy difficulties currently availing of the service. There is a range of strategies that have been developed by NALA and they are waiting to be implemented.

There is an urgent need to fully integrate basic education support into all measures aimed at tackling social and economic exclusion. Currently people with reading and writing difficulties cannot take part in a FÁS or CERT training course because these Agencies do not wish to take them on board unless they have a minimum qualification.

There is a need for accredited initial and inservice training for all literacy workers. Literacy awareness training is also essential for organisations, agencies and Departments. Training is required for adult learners who have benefited from the literacy service to deliver outreach programmes.

We need to look at creating appropriate progression routes for adult literacy students in consultation with other adult education providers. We have many students who would love to go on to a VTOS programme but because there are no bridging programmes available at present those people cannot access a programme.

Research is urgently needed in a variety of areas, in particular appropriate assessment methods; the extent of the present service; the experience and development of literacy provision in other countries.

NALA has already submitted a proposal and applied to the EU Socrates for funding to look at the whole area of quality standards because there is no

We need to look at the use of computers in literacy work especially as we are dealing with a lot more younger people who are joining literacy schemes and are more likely to improve their reading and writing abilities with the aide of computer software.

To enable networking we should provide a structure for partnership approaches to tuition locally and regionally.

We currently have a national referral service but we have no free phone facility. Unfortunately, people living in rural areas will not ring a Dublin number.

We need resources to further develop context appropriate material, a shop front for the National Resource Centre and to make appropriate software packages available. The last budget provided a substantial increase in funding of adult literacy. We campaigned in the pre-election lobby that the funding would be doubled consecutively so that it would rise to £4 million this year, £8 million next year and £16 million the following year.

We call for a separation of the adult literacy and community education budget. It causes great difficulty in terms of trying to ascertain how much money is spent on adult literacy within individual VEC areas because an allocation is not equally divided between adult literacy and community education. We ask for a review of criteria used in allocating the ALCE budget so as to explore a more effective means of distributing this fund. Separate specific funding should be allocated to adult literacy within adult education and training programmes, as appropriate, for example, FÁS, CERT and Teagasc programmes, etc. Teagasc are examining their role in this area at the moment but they are reluctant to source funding from another area if they think the ALCE budget is supposed to fund it.

The standard of adult literacy provision throughout the country is clearly inconsistent and in some cases most unacceptable. The implementation of an appropriate national quality standard for adult literacy and basic education provision will ensure consistency of the service in all areas. An appropriate national authority to ensure adult literacy provision standards are adhered to, as detailed in this submission, needs to be put in place.

NALA has a commitment to the development and maintenance of a high quality service within a philosophy which ensures that all adults with reading and writing difficulties have an opportunity to develop their skills in the context of personal development and critical awareness so that they are able to participate fully in society. NALA will continue to play a central role in the co-ordination of adult literacy. This work increasingly involves consistency amongst the service throughout the country.

supporting the development of the local literacy service as well as meeting the demands of the statutory sector which is also working with people with reading and writing difficulties.

There is also the development of specific quality standards for literacy practice in consultation with practitioners and responsibility for the monitoring of such standards in conjunction with the Department of Education. This includes updating our current policy document to incorporate a code of good practice and ensuring it is appropriate to meet future demands.

It is also proposed to co-ordinate work in the development of training, to participate in the development of a national strategy for the delivery of adult literacy training at national, regional and local level, to build on the NALA training guidelines and to develop training courses to meet the needs of trainers and tutors by extending the NCEA accreditation framework, informed by the lessons learned from the piloting of the Waterford Institute of Technology/NALA Certificate in Training and Development. This is a pilot scheme and funding has only been sourced for it. We are still waiting to hear whether we will be able to deliver further training in this area.

It is proposed to increase access to accredited prior experimental learning, to investigate appropriate community based accreditation models in cooperation with other key agencies providing training in the community and voluntary sector, to develop a strategy to implement literacy awareness training for organisations dealing with the general public and to require support to respond effectively to those adults who have literacy difficulties.

We will continue our national referral and information service and provide adult materials for tutors and students using the expertise and experience built up through working closely with practitioners over the past 20 years.

It is difficult to continue to carry out publicity with our very small budget. RTE gave us some free advertising and every time we carry out even the smallest piece of advertising, whether on local radio or on national television, we are inundated with calls from people who wish to join the service.

We advocate a process whereby we work in partnership with all those involved in tackling the issue of literacy and basic education. We would strongly support an interdepartmental approach to this area. At the moment we are working with a number of Departments and State agencies not under the Department of Education which are trying to deal with their who have reading and writing difficulties without the support of a budget.

On the community employment scheme, a number of supervisors are referring people to a local literacy service. However there is no community employment scheme which provides basic education for the people on the scheme in the first instance. We now have a situation whereby the literacy schemes which are working to capacity are being asked to provide a free literacy service to people on the community employment scheme, even though there is a very small training budget available for each individual who engages in community employment programmes.

A lot of our effort has moved beyond working with the Department of Education and the VECs to working with other interested parties, in particular FÁS, Teagasc, the Local Employment Services, the Partnerships in general and the Department of Social Community and Family Affairs. We are trying through the national anti-poverty strategy to see how an interdepartmental approach can be brought together but it is a very slow process and difficulties arise in relation to stepping on the toes of other Departments and agencies and sourcing funding.

The presentation contains more information which members can read. The agency and its members are delighted that the committee is addressing adult literacy and we look forward to hearing its recommendations.

Chairman: You said that the adults who seek help come from different age groups and backgrounds. Which group do you deal with most? You also referred to early school leavers. The committee is disappointed at the number of people who had problems with literacy. What is the strategy for helping current school leavers?

Senator Ormonde: I apologise for being late. Thank you for your very informed presentation. Having listened to another presentation yesterday evening, we are very well informed about all aspects of adult literacy, the defects and how best we can improve the service. The service stops when the academic year stops and everything possible should be done to extend it throughout the summer and bring it into the community and the workplace.

As I said yesterday, tutors and voluntary helpers are not the ideal people because very often those who need adult literacy and numeracy skills have personality defects and low self-esteem. It is not enough to talk about literacy and numeracy per se; one must encompass the whole personality. I know from experience that very often after one session an adult may not be able to mix with others, is not able to cope and does not have a one-to-one feeling. It is,

Deputy R. Bruton: First, it has been presented to us by the “official” side that not all of the 500,000 therefore, important that the tutors, trainers, remedial teachers, guidance counsellors, home-school links are professionals. There is more involved than adult literacy and numeracy defects and the professionals must be able to get to the root of the problem.

There is no point in starting to address the problem when one is 20 years or 16 years. The problem must be addressed at the junior level in primary school. It is much more difficult to deal with it at a later stage.

Ms Bailey: On early school leavers, we have noted from our research that there is low participation in literacy schemes by young people who have reading and writing difficulties. There is a number of reasons for this. The first barrier is that there are no creche facilities for young married and single women with children. The second barrier is that these people are not told when they leave school that they can avail of a literacy service at a later stage. We met people who were extremely angry that it had taken them 20 years to find about the local literacy service and while they may not have joined it straightaway it would not have taken them 20 years to do so.

There are more young men in the scheme than young women. Young men who leave school early and fail to get a place on a training programme or secure employment because they do not have adequate skills will join the scheme sooner. Another problem is a lack of computers which would make the service more accessible to younger people who want to improve their literacy and numeracy skills. We have a range of strategies but do not have the money, which no doubt is a common complaint. In relation to the Senator’s points, the tutor training available in schemes ranges from high quality to not such high quality. The emphasis is on the individual who will be the tutor as opposed to their necessary qualifications, prior qualifications in particular. Many people are of the view that teachers do not have to do the training programme but everybody has to do the training programme. A wide range of people from the local community, including students who have gone through this process and who return to become tutors, but not everybody who goes through the training programme is allowed be a tutor.

We would like to see in place better training and follow-up training for people when they come in as well as monitoring by organisers of tutors and their students. There are a number of schemes in Dublin which have approximately 300 students, some 200 of which work on a one to one basis with a tutor. Organisers do not have the resources to monitor the relationship between a tutor and the client.

mentioned could be regarded as having serious literacy problems that would hamper them, and that many at the literacy one level have adequate skills by any yardstick. I would like Ms Bailey to comment on that. Second, Ms Bailey said that currently 1 per cent of the 500,000 is reached, in other words, 5,000 people participate in the scheme. What targets should we set to address this problem in a planned way? Third, any resources that become available inevitably will be rationed - Ms Bailey suggested £16 million by the year 2000. What does Ms Bailey regard as the priorities to be tackled? She has a list of recommendations that run to three or four pages but it would help us to get an expert view on what she regards as the priorities. I understand she has been asked by the Minister to list her priorities in respect of the £2 million but it would be interesting to hear Ms Bailey’s views on prioritisation. For example, how important is it that we move to paid literacy tutors? According to the Minister, if the existing number were paid it would cost £2 million which would immediately double the cost. Is that a priority or are we right to regard volunteers as an important dimension of the work and something that is worth preserving?

My final question concerns Outreach. It is clear from Ms Bailey’s figures that her organisation is only reaching the most motivated of those experiencing literacy problems. The figure she produced for the unemployment rate among her cohort was 18.5 per cent while the OECD indicates that the total cohort is experiencing 33 per cent unemployment. That seems to confirm that the people coming to Ms Bailey’s organisation are more motivated. Which models have been successful in Outreach? Have the HORIZON or similar programmes highlighted successful models we should incorporate?

Deputy Farrelly: I want to ask a number of questions. Ms Bailey stated we are reaching only 1 per cent of the total number of people who have a problem. That is totally inadequate when one takes into consideration the numbers we are talking about. I intended asking the question put Deputy Bruton in relation to paying the volunteers and whether we would get a better service if they were paid. The Minister informed us yesterday that Aontas will get at least the 1997 allocation until such time as it is decided how the other amount is to be spent. We made some progress in getting that information from the Minister yesterday and we have informed Ms Bailey now so she can now start work on that.

Ms Bailey told us there is a problem with accommodation. I thought the VECs co-operated with Aontas in this regard. Can we not ensure that the tutors and those who take the course at least have resonable accommodation when they attend? That problem is most disturbing and I am sure it is discouraging for the people concerned that we think so little of them. There is a great deal of accommodation available in schools throughout the country which are closed from 4 o’clock in the evening and at weekends, yet we hear that the accommodation available for use is inadequate. In many cases people have to be encouraged to take up these courses. Many of them are reluctant to admit they have a problem and when they work up the courage to come forward, we put them sitting on children’s chairs. More work has to be done in this area and simply throwing money at the problem will not solve it. The money must be spent in a planned way and there should be more discussion on how that should be done.

Deputy P. Carey: I want to make four brief points. There is some anecdotal but worrying evidence that there has been a significant fall-off in the uptake of adult literacy courses in Dublin areas, with which I am most familiar. Is that due to a lack of progression in the courses being provided? Is there too much of a challenge involved or do people want to take up other courses they find more interesting? In regard to the work of home-school community liaison schemes, and without casting aspersions on some of the courses, I wonder if it is sometimes easier for people to go to, say, a karate class than an adult literacy class. I read a report last night which highlighted a worrying trend that the pool of people who required support might be exhausted. That is extraordinary.

My second point relates to another worrying trend. Community employment schemes have a training budget and they must meet certain targets in regard to training hours. Local employment services and FÁS refer people with literacy difficulties to adult literacy organisers but there is an element of compulsion in that. It is like the Jobsearch programme promoted by the Department of Social Welfare a number of years ago. Once there is an element of compulsion in something like this, it may prove to be the death knell of the success of many schemes. It takes a great deal of effort for somebody to admit they need to make the break, but if people have a State agency supporting them, that is a different matter.

I met three voluntary tutors last night who were waiting for trainees to arrive. These trainees attended the first week and were delighted with the programme, they were ill the second week and did not appear the third week. A volunteer does not turn down an opportunity like that. Does NALA have any insights into the best way in which adult literacy could be promoted among community employment scheme participants and others without making it compulsory?

I have been engaged in a running argument about community education versus adult literacy for some time now. I am of the view that community education sows the seed for people’s introduction into the education system and that the next step involves taking up literacy programmes and so on. I am

I would like to hear NALA’s views on the lack of appropriate literature for Irish students participating in adult literacy courses. I have a great deal of respect for what the author, Patricia Scanlan, has done in the Dublin area in writing special material for such students. She is due publish a further two books which I believe are currently at an advanced stage. There is a shortage of suitable literature in this area and I wonder whether that is a significant factor in the fact that we seem unable to make inroads into this problem.

Ms Bailey: The 500,000 figure is a very interesting one. Members will be aware that research carried out by the Department of Education some years ago showed that 400,000 adults experienced reading and writing difficulties. However, that research was never made public owing to a flaw in the research methodology. NALA was then asked to adhere to the 100,000 figure because it was the only figure comparable to other surveys carried out across a number of European countries. I believe it is irrelevant whether the figure is 500,000 or 100,000 as the present service is unable to cope with far less than the latter number in any event. However, I think the 500,000 figure is a fair one. We would encounter a number of people within that cohort who genuinely cannot read or write at all. Such people are “crawling out of the woodwork”. The best they may be able to do is write their names.

We are also encountering people who have been in literacy schemes for up to seven years and who are now attempting to sit the leaving certificate English paper. Those people still have a literacy difficulty as their spelling, grammar and self confidence would still be quite poor. Perhaps that is a reflection on me as I have been tutor to one such group for five years. Tutors and students have only two hours per week in which to do this work over a 30 week period. The participants do not have any study skills experience, they come, in the main, from very poor backgrounds and studying in their homes is a complete nightmare. Some of them have children of school going age to whom they must give priority and their own study time and educational development comes very far down the list. The process is a very slow one and people are not given any support or incentives such as travel allowances, tax incentives, books and so on. They only receive photocopied material as we cannot afford to purchase any books at all for them. No supports are available to such people and that is why the 500,000 figure is probably an accurate one.

Some of my students who intend to sit the leaving certificate English paper would still experience somewhat concerned that community education seems to be being sidelined.

difficulties with some of the tests set in the survey. If those tests are considered to indicate a low level of literacy, then the 500,000 figure is true. Level 3 in the survey is considered to be the minimum desirable threshold in most European countries. In Ireland, 25 per cent of people are at level 1 and 30 per cent are at level 2. That represents a further 500,000 people and there are other people who do not have the necessary skills to compete in the type of high skilled, high tech economy which we are experiencing. There are varying degrees of literacy within that 500,000 figure ranging from people with extremely basic and poor skills to people who possess good skills but would not be able to meet the requirements of everyday living.

Most people would return to a literacy scheme out of a very specific motivation. For example, they may want to enter a particular training programme or course, seek promotion at work or help their children with their homework. People do not return to schemes out of a great sense of needing to improve their general communication skills or to read literature. These people are starkly motivated and hopefully we have a mechanism through which education can be opened up to them and they can be assisted to stay within the system.

NALA does not set targets although that may seem like a cop out. The national anti-poverty strategy and previous Government papers have set targets which aim to eradicate literacy problems within a ten year period. I do not know how those targets will be met. NALA’s target would be to aim to open up the service to a greater number of people but not to the entire 500,000 referred to by Deputy Bruton.

A number of multifaceted approaches could be taken to tackle and improve literacy levels. Different Government Departments and State agencies need to integrate basic skills into their training programmes for the people who may never participate in literacy schemes but who may participate in FÁS courses. Their literacy skills and levels could be improved if they received integrated training.

Huge problems are being experienced in regard to filling in forms and some people expect the forms to be filled in for them. Filling in forms for people does not help them in any way when they must fill in subsequent forms. The ICMSA have told us that they are filling in forms for people. Surely these people could be encouraged to learn something which would enable them to fill in those forms. I am not suggesting they all come to the local literacy service looking for help as the service would crash if that happened. Perhaps other mechanisms could be put in place by State agencies whereby something could be done to improve people’s skills level in this area. If somebody continues to fill in forms on these people’s behalf, the motivation will not be present for them to

Teagasc, as a State agency, is attempting to address this problem and has stated its need to take cognisance of the fact that a number of young farmers cannot successfully complete green certs. Such people are being pulled or pushed through the system. They will not enter a literacy scheme if they are sitting the green cert and we do not particularly want to redirect them to NALA if they can be dealt with elsewhere. A multifaceted approach to the whole literacy area is required.

Staffing of the local literacy service is one of our major priorities at the moment. It is impossible to deliver a service if one does not have the necessary staff, paid and voluntary. We would always recognise the value of volunteers. At European level, there are very few volunteers left in the literacy service and Ireland is the envy of Europe by virtue of the fact that we still have them. As a result of the absence of volunteers in other EU countries, no one-to-one tuition is available. When it is provided, it is usually a highly expensive affair which lasts for a couple of weeks for a particular student in desperate need. We see volunteers playing a vital role in delivering a vital part of our service. However, they receive no out-of-pocket expenses and very little incentive to become involved because there is only a small training programme. If more supports and incentives were put in place, more volunteers would be encouraged to participate. One cannot really expect poorly paid staff to continue delivering a service for which there is an increasing demand. There should be good relations between the local literacy service and other providers in an area. I have listed the recommendations in order of importance. Under the INTEGRA programme we carried out a number of recruitment strategies and discovered that there are a number of successful models available. They require the participation of representatives from all sectors in the local community. If these people do not recognise that literacy difficulties concerns them they are not going to co-operate. It is important that we work with key players at a local level to encourage their involvement. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs intend to train their front line staff so they can engage in setting up a national referral policy between social welfare officers and the local literacy scheme.

In relation to forms, the Department tells us there are all sorts of legal implications for them when a client has literacy difficulties because they would be held liable if a departmental official inserts incorrect information on a form. As a result of this situation they want NALA to solve this problem for them. A co-ordinated approach between all the relevant do it themselves. The problem may be a form today but it may be people’s children tomorrow.

groups at local level will ensure a person with literacy problems will get the service they require in whatever environment they are in and, if necessary, they will also receive information about a local literacy service.

I know the Minister said he would tell the VECs the amount of their allocation but they still have not got any funds. The VECs inform us that they cannot spend money they do not have. They will be in serious difficulties if they do not get that money very soon. It will look as if they did not spend the money within the time they had it, and therefore, it would be assumed that they would not need the same amount again. Unfortunately, there is a delay in the allocation of funding every year.

Accommodation is a problem for some schemes. We would like appropriate accommodation for schemes so adults can avail of our service. Many adults refuse to return to school for literacy tuition because that is where their problems began.

In relation to take-up rates, I am unaware of any fall off in take-up rates for schemes. I do know there is a duplication of services at local level. For example, the home/school liaison service may be duplicating services already provided in some areas. If you avail of this service your books and fees will be paid for, and therefore, there is a greater incentive to join the home/school liaison service rather than a local literacy scheme.

Deputy O’Shea: I was interested in the reference made to the settings approach, in other words, work based schemes. What do you mean by settings and how can this service be developed? In relation to dyslexia, are there any specialist services provided for people with this problem? How would you address this problem?

Ms Bailey: The work based literacy programme already exists in most European countries and the trade unions and employers develop these programmes. Generally, the employer will identify a group of employees who have below standard skills and arrange a retraining programme. Employers want to specifically provide retraining programmes in health and safety. They will employ a team of literacy tutors to develop an appropriate programme that will meet the needs of both the employer and the employees. There is a lot of suspicion to be overcome because some people think they will be sacked if it is discovered they have a literacy problem. This is a very successful programme once the employer is involved and the scheme is developed within the workplace. As this is an in-house literacy or basic education programme the employees do not have to give extra time, pay for the scheme or pay travel expenses. There is also little or no study requirement because the programme is held at the workplace. Unfortunately, Irish employers, and in particular trade unions, are to implement this scheme. The trade unions do not acknowledge that many of their members have literacy problems. Most of their training programmes are geared towards members with higher qualifications. They mirror the current situation in adult education schemes which is the more qualifications a person has the more training is available to them.

NALA has run a number of schemes to train people to diagnose and assist people with dyslexia but we are not experts in this area. If an adult has enough money they can be diagnosed as dyslexic. NALA works with people who we suspect are dyslexic and our teaching methods would be shaped by our own assessment of an individual’s needs. Our training schemes for dyslexic adults have been very successful. Unfortunately, in working class or poor areas dyslexia is known as literacy and in middle class areas literacy is known as dyslexia. This is evident in the local literacy schemes. There is an organisation that assists adult dyslexics but the high cost of this scheme makes it very prohibitive for many people.

Chairman: Thank you for all your comments. We will bear in mind everything that you have said when we prepare our report. I propose Deputy R. Bruton prepares a report on this issue and we will discuss it. We can present it to the Dáil when it is agreed. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next meeting of the joint committee will take place on Tuesday, 28 April 1998.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 10.30 a.m.

* substitute for Senator L. Ó Murchú.

apologies received from Senators Joe O’Toole and Máirín Quill