Pledge to principals ‘unwise’

THE Department of Education has admitted it was unwise for former Minister for Education Michael Woods to promise principals, prior to the last general election, that schools would be built within a certain time period.

The Department’s accounting officer told the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) John Purcell that it was imprudent to make these guarantees to schools.

This follows a controversial move by Mr Woods to inform several schools they were included on the 2002 school building programme. The CAG took a detailed look at expenditure on school buildings in 2002 after some guarantees made by the Government weren’t honoured.

The Department of Education has admitted that there was insufficient money for some projects and planning delays in others.

When the 2002 building programme was reviewed earlier this year, some schools earmarked for improvements were not included on the new list. “Projects could only be allowed to advance where the funding was available to meet the consequential cost,” said the CAG report.

These problems have prompted the accounting officer to warn against detailed correspondence with schools in the future.

“To provide a school management authority with even an indicative time-frame that could be seriously eroded through circumstances and conditions completely outside the control of the department is considered to be imprudent,” said the CAG report.

The accounting officer said the department is never sure of its exact annual budget until the November estimates, and this makes it impossible to give school managers a time-frame for new buildings.

Primary teachers’ union the INTO said last night the department should be given a five-year building budget.

“This report spells out clearly the importance of getting ring-fenced multi-annual funding if schools are to be given any clear time-frame for the completion of building projects,” said general secretary John Carr.

Mr Purcell’s audit also examined how some schools were apparently approved ahead of others with the same needs. Referring to a value for money report he published in 1996, the CAG said its key recommendation to establish a system to prioritise the most needy schools remains valid.

“Without a proper prioritisation system based on a predetermined objective criteria, the department cannot demonstrate that the building programme addresses the areas of greatest need,” he said.

The department said the method used to assess applications for school building targets those most in need.

However, the accounting officer admitted the department can’t always ensure that schools with the greatest need are targeted.