This motion seeks to ensure that the Minister for Education and Science retains the Breaking the Cycle scheme in operation in the Central Model School in Marlborough Street and in Scoil Mhuire in Dorset Street. I tabled it two weeks ago because I was told that four teaching posts under the Breaking the Cycle scheme would be lost in the junior and senior primary schools in Marlborough Street and in Scoil Mhuire boys' and girls' schools. Since then other proposed teaching losses have come to my attention in Sheriff Street, City Quay, St. Vincent's and in many other parts of the city. I refer to these areas in particular because they are deprived areas of the inner city and all, except one, are in my constituency.
When the Breaking the Cycle scheme was introduced in 1996 by the then Minister for Education, Ms Bhreathnach, its purpose was to examine the declining numbers of pupils in primary schools and the subsequent staffing requirements in terms of pupil/teacher ratios. There should be a deliberate attempt to reduce the teacher/pupil ratio in certain areas where that is required. Half the teacher surplus should be used for this purpose rather than dividing it equally between schools.
The Minister chose 25 urban and 25 rural schools which fell into a particular category, the criteria of which were determined independently by the Combat Poverty Agency. The idea was to have a maximum ratio of 15:1, which would be a substantial reduction of a ratio of approximately 25:1. This was a major effort to focus resources in areas where they were most needed. I understand from speaking to teachers in the area that it has made a great difference to have an inner city class size of 15 or fewer compared to 25 or more and the level of personal attention which can be given to pupils in the classroom has greatly improved.
I am dismayed that the Minister now proposes to reduce the ratio in these schools. When the scheme was introduced two years ago it was on a five year basis. Nobody expected anyone to interfere with it until we saw how it operated. If it operated effectively, then it could be assessed and a decision could be made. However, the Minister is interfering with it in its second year. The Minister was not in a position to interfere with it last year because the elections took place in June and it was then too late to require schools to reduce their teacher numbers. However, at the first opportunity the Minister has intervened in a negative fashion to take teachers who are very much needed.
I will give the Minister an idea of the type of school to which I refer. In one of the schools in the area 10 per cent of the pupils are categorised as seriously disruptive. In other circumstances these students would be in special schools and they would cost the State a fortune. They are being taught now and, according to the teacher with whom I spoke today, they are anxious to stay on in school as the summer holidays approach. That is a good sign of the quality of teaching and care, although I suppose it says much about the environment in which the students would find themselves outside school. In the same school a number of pupils have specific disabilities as well as being disruptive and at risk in other areas.
There are also 11 children of asylum seekers attending the school. They account for roughly 10 or 11 per cent of the pupils in the school. The school is taking on board that new category of pupils which is increasing in number in the inner city. These circumstances render it difficult for a decision to be taken in the previous September. The decision was taken on 13 September 1997 for allocations in 1998.
There is flexibility in the operation of schools with regard to the numbers of pupils enroling on an ongoing basis for many reasons, including the fact that some pupils are the children of asylum seekers and the nature of inner city schooling where, unlike in middle class environments, the names of pupils are brought to the teacher at the last moment at the end of the summer. Until the school opens in September it is never easy to know precisely the number of pupils who wish to attend. It is a different scenario entirely from what one would expect in other areas in the country.
The existing good system, which was set up as a five year pilot programme, is being undermined in its second year. At the same time, the Minister is introducing a good scheme for 15 to 18 year olds. If the teachers are taken from these schools, it will probably result in the need for new teachers. There are teachers who are being trained for the Breaking the Cycle scheme who will be let go and new staff will replace them later in the year.
In the interests of the pupils, education, Breaking the Cycle and, indeed, the Minister, because this is a volatile situation and there is much antagonism in the communities over what the Minister is proposing to do, the Minister should rescind the decision which has been taken by the Department of Education and Science and letters should emanate from the Department to these schools reversing the decision.
