The grants are to be increased. There is a drop in the amount of building taking place so the capital required is reduced. Having said that much, I might add that the science buildings at the Belfield site have been provided at a cost of £2,500,000. At University College, Cork, and University College, Galway, additional accommodation for science students has been completed or is in course of completion. As I said before, there are proposals for further programmes of university buildings which, when fully developed, will require additional capital investment. There is no reason to assume this will not be available.
While I am on that, I may say that I think education statistics may be taken as reflecting the health of our economy. No matter what one thinks of our system of education—there are those who are very antagonistic towards the organisation of the system and others think it is the only way— you will have to agree it is unique in that the secondary education in Ireland is totally in the hands of private enterprise. I do not think any other country in the world has this situation. Because of this fact its financing represents a combination of private fees, and public support and investment, and so the statistics of education reflect the general state of the economy.
I should like to refer the House to the numbers attending secondary schools, vocational schools and universities now as compared with 1957, the year when there was a change of Government. In that year the attendance at secondary schools numbered 59,306 pupils. By last year this 59,000 had exploded over the years to 92,989. The numbers attending vocational schools for the same dates went from 21,786 to more than 30,000 pupils. In the day apprentice and technical courses, the figures went from 8,393 to 15,000. In 1957, there were 8,369 whole-time students attending the university and for 1963-64, which is the last year for which I have figures, the number was 12,915.
As I say, this ability—I am not now taking on this issue of whether the State or private enterprise should pay the fees—of people to pay fees is expressed in the explosive numbers. It also reflects the ability of the State to support the increase because for every student attending a secondary school, the State has to pay a capitation grant. Teachers have to be first made available and then paid a salary for every secondary school supplied. Similarly, in the case of vocational education schemes they have all to be supported by the State at a general global figure of two-thirds the cost. The universities, both in capital and in current grants from the State, have had a great increase because of the increase in numbers.
The State has continually been able to keep up with this pressure because of the proper handling of our finances. We had experience, immediately before that change of Government, of the facility with which the opposite situation can be brought about.
I think it was Deputy Sweetman also who referred, as people are inclined to do, to the increase in money for education—we all want more money for education—and said that our provision was merely for teachers' salaries, as if that were a less worthy way of spending money on education than other possibilities. I am sure, apart from the teachers, there are plenty of other people in the community who regard the teachers as the most important single factor in the effectiveness of any system of education. We cannot regard the State payment of salaries and increases to teachers as being unimportant. I take issue with the speaker, who, in one sentence, disposed of our extra expenditure in that way.
This Government, apart from the normal sharing out of the increased prosperity which has come to this country, the normal sharing out which was due to teachers, this Government by deliberate act of policy decided to raise the status of teachers within the community in so far as this could be done in terms of money. I believe this is the most significant single gesture to indicate our attitude to educational developments. It is not true to say that this is all we did with the money available. In 1957, in terms of actual money, the cost—and it is not a very small amount when you think of the size of the country—to the State was £15 million and by 1961-62 that had gone up to £19 million. We hope, for 1965-66 to provide £33,500,000. We have increased, in a period of eight years, the total expenditure on education by 123 per cent. Some of this, as I say, was spent on teachers' salaries and also on raising the teachers' status in the community. That has only been possible because of the availability of money. I am sure those interested would like to hear some of the things which have been achieved by having extra money available, which in turn has been made possible by proper management of our finances. One of the things which we have been able to do is to add to our corps of teachers 1,000 extra in number since 1957, which means an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. The question of very large classes has been raised in this House many times. That is something which bothered me some time ago and I arranged for a survey to be undertaken and information collected so that we could come to grips with the problem and have a reorganisation of classes within schools and a redistribution, where possible, of attendance at schools in the same locality.
The vast majority of these large classes have been done away with, that is, the classes with over 50 on the roll. We were able to supply extra teachers and prefabricated buildings to help solve the problem further. Progress towards further solution of the problem, and a further reduction in the size of the classes in relation to the teachers, will be possible as extra teachers become available.
As I said, we hope to be able to continue the improvement in the number of teachers which has taken place since 1957. Part of the scheme for doing that has been the replacement and extension work in St. Patrick's Training College to provide extra accommodation. Again, when you start to spend money on any part of the education system, you find that you have to spend a great deal before you can show any advance. The college itself had gone beyond being a suitable place for the residential training of teachers. It has been found possible to increase the accommodation for training, and that was made possible by the availability of the necessary £1,500,000. The quality of our teachers is very high—and I am sure Deputies are aware that we must be one of the few countries in the world no longer recruiting untrained teachers—and this quality continues to be improved by the employment of extra staff in the training colleges, and the provision within them of such modern aids as language laboratories.
While all that has been going on, the other need in our educational system at national school level has been the provision of schools. For many years we had been producing the depressingly low figure of about 40 replacements each year, with little prospect of ever seeing an end to the big backlog of several hundreds—perhaps 700 or 800—bad schools which were in need of replacement. The progress made in our financial position, and the management of our affairs since 1957, enabled us to undertake the biggest school building programme ever attempted here, a programme which in the most recent 12 months produced 108 new schools and 93 schemes of major improvement. Therefore it is not true to say the extra money was spent merely on teachers' salaries, as one Deputy from the opposite side asserted. We raised the status of teachers, so far as that can be expressed in terms of money, and we also improved beyond measure the facilities available at national school level.
A number of Deputies have recently shown an interest, and a welcome interest in handicapped children. I am sure schools and parents will be glad of these champions in this matter, but it is not the champions but the handlers of our economy who made possible the provision of something like 41 special schools for physically and mentally handicapped children. The major portion of the cost involved in providing those schools was borne by the State.
The cost involved in meeting the explosion in secondary school attendance was mainly on the basic grants payable. The capitation and other grants were themselves increased in amount but the big increase is due to the fact that over the years the numbers for whom capitation grants must be paid have gone up so fast. It was also necessary to meet the cost of the increase in the number of whole-time secondary teachers from 2,857 to 4,000. That meant that extra salaries, and improved salaries at that, had to be paid. The number of our school buildings has increased from 474 to 573 in this year.
One part of our system of education depends on the other, and to enable teachers to be available they, in their turn, had to find a place in the university to be trained. That was made possible—and the further increase which is necessary will be made possible—by the building of the new university at Belfield, and extensions to our other colleges. Many of the people who felt we were not going fast enough in providing educational facilities may have been among those who objected to our building a university at Belfield. Only one, or perhaps, two members of the House objected to this building at Belfield. Apart from these the House responded well to the need for that building. Those who have given thought to the matter realise that this extra provision is being made available just in time. The science faculties have moved to Belfield, and that has greatly eased their position. They had reached the stage where it was almost impossible for them to do their work. A Minister for Education is mainly interested in the universities for the provision of teachers, but as a member of the Government, I must also be interested in the other graduates from the universities who are so necessary to the economic and social health of the country.
As I have said, we have a unique system of secondary education. It is not directly influenced by any central authority. We have 573 schools which are privately and independently owned. From time to time we find it necessary to seek their co-operation, for example, in recent years in the teaching of science. Since the possibility of the Common Market became more alive, and since tourism brought the European nations closer together, we have also needed to stress the teaching of modern languages. Those things have been encouraged by the introduction of special grants for science equipment, special grants to attract science graduates to secondary school teaching and, as the House knows, by television programmes, and visual aids. The teaching of modern continental languages has been stimulated by making grants for visual aids in language laboratories and the provision of special residential courses for teachers of modern languages.
There has been a very heartening increase in the number of pupils—and especially among boys where the learning of languages was not popular at one time—in our secondary schools who are taking modern continental languages. We have improved the pupil-teacher ratio so that one recognised teacher is now available for every 15 pupils, in addition to special recognition being accorded to the headmaster of the school.
I suppose most members of the House are aware of the building of new schools and the enlargement of existing schools within the vocational system. The overall accommodation in vocational schools has been almost doubled since 1957, and the total financial provision from State funds has been almost trebled. Closer liaison has been established between schools and industry and commerce, which has resulted in extended courses for managers, technicians, operatives, apprentices, and so on. Equally close co-operation is being developed between the vocational schools and the agricultural interests, activities such as the winter farm schools and Macra na Tuatha. I mention these various activities, which have been made possible by the availability of extra funds, for the benefit of those who might feel that all we have done with our extra expenditure is to increase the salaries of teachers. We have done that as a deliberate policy but, as the House will gather from these few facts which I have given, we have done a great deal more.
From time to time a request is made by somebody that we should raise the school-leaving age. Indeed, we have announced our intention of doing this but I should like those who call for the change to give it some thought. You cannot just pass a law or make a rule to raise the school-leaving age and give the matter no more attention. Raising the school-leaving age carries implications. You just cannot keep children in primary schools up to the age of 15. If you raise the school-leaving age to 15, as we intend to do, you have to have some post-primary education available to everybody.
If I have been guided by one special principle as Minister for Education, it has been to try to reach the stage of making some post-primary education available to every child. Exaggerated slogans such as "Free Education For All" are not possible. We have been reminded that we are not a wealthy country but it is possible to take a first step and to see that every child will get some post-primary education.
An excuse for post-primary education would not be enough would be cynical. What we need is to provide a course of post-primary education for every child who can benefit by it, which is almost every child in the country. This, in its turn, implies building and the availability of teaching staff at that level. It implies a vast expenditure of State money which we cannot afford to spend lavishly and indiscriminately so there is an implication that there will have to be some guidance of the pupil towards the type of post-primary education most suited to his abilities and some consideration in our programme for the needs of the community. Such selection, being just one facet, will require the availability of specialised staff in the Department of Education and in the field to consult with the teachers and the heads of schools.
Any aspect of raising the school-leaving age which you care to mention will cost money. We hope to have sufficient school buildings and sufficient teachers trained and produced by our universities by 1970 to raise the school-leaving age by 1970. We hope, with the co-operation of the owners of private secondary schools, where these are available, to be able to provide education suitable to the aptitudes of the various pupils and to the needs of society. I do not think anybody would say that everybody in the community should have an academic education and I do not think anybody really believes that the selection of the type of education should be determined by one's financial position but these are considerations which have to be worked out. In the meantime, we hope to get the co-operation of the secondary schools and the co-operation of the vocational committees. In any areas where provision has not been made by private enterprise, we hope to provide comprehensive schools, as I call them, in which the range of subjects taught will be sufficiently wide to give every child attending the school an opportunity to develop his or her talents. Some of these schools are already being planned. A few are in the hands of the architects. The introduction of a comprehensive curriculum is really more important, if less eye-catching, than the building of the comprehensive schools. The Department of Education has prepared these curricula and will consult with all the people concerned who should be consulted about their introduction.
Perhaps the most important development, having provided for some post-primary education for everybody, is to provide what is now greatly lacking, that is, a higher course in the technical side of our educational system. I do not think that anybody would agree with the present proportions following academic courses and otherwise. Part of our plan is to provide a higher course in the technical school leading to a technical leaving certificate, this examination itself leading to technological courses in the technological colleges or in the university. These courses have been planned and consultations will soon take place, if they have not already taken place, between officers of the Department of Education and, in the field, organisers of the vocational system. The ordinary course in the vocational school will become a three-year course instead of a two-year course.
When fully implemented, I think our system will give a fair chance, and as time goes on, it can be developed to give a full chance to every child in the community. We have to wait for the time it takes to train teachers. We have to wait for the time it takes to get co-operation. We have to wait for the time it takes to provide buildings. It is not just a matter of saying: "We will raise the school-leaving age."
These slogans are meaningless. Anybody who has given thought to the real problems of providing opportunity for all of our children will realise that it will take not just a great deal of money but time, patience and co-operation to achieve what we all want. We plan to achieve these things.
I have given this outline of what we intend to do, to show that my mind is clear about what opportunities we want to give our children.
As well as that, we have set up the Commission on Higher Education who have not yet reported to me but whose report is being drafted at the moment. I have no knowledge of what is in that report. We have working, too—and I have been expecting a report from them—a team under the joint aegis of the Department of Education and the OECD. These will project our needs in education in the next ten to 15 years, based on certain assumptions. Much of our possible expenditure will have to await the recommendations we shall get from these bodies but I do not think we will have to wait too long. When the various people concerned who have a right to state opinions on these matters have been consulted, we shall move into an era of much heavier expenditure on education but I think that a Government who in eight years have gone from £15 million to £33½ million can be depended on to continue to support the type of educational development in which we believe.
I might say that, as an earnest of our intentions and as an interim measure, in 1961 the first attempt at State aid to local authority scholarships was made. At that time I said it was a pattern which I hoped to see expanded. The scholarship scheme since then has trebled the number of scholarships to post-primary schools and has very much increased the number and the value of scholarships to universities. It is not fully in operation yet as each year up to five years will provide an extension to the original scheme. It is through methods like these we can ensure that the clever boy or girl, at any rate, will not lose their opportunity while we are awaiting the final day, the day of a completely satisfactory system. I do not know if any country has a completely satisfactory system. In any event, we are all well-intentioned enough to aim at a system here which will give equal opportunity to all our children.
We introduced direct building grants for secondary schools. This is something that would not have been possible, were it not for the successful handling of our financial affairs. There has been some delay in arranging the method of the allocation of these grants but there are applications before my Department, being considered at the moment, and it is intended that the State support will be given on the basis of 60 per cent, allowable on the interest payable on the capital sum required for the building of a school. The scheme is well known to members of the House.
Mar focal scoir, ba mhaith liom beagán a rá faoin gceist a phlé an Teachta Sweetman i dtaobh na nollscoileanna. Ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl dó nach bhfuil aon cheist i mbliana go ndéanfar laghdú ar na deontaisí ollscoile. Beidh a mhalairt de scéal ann maidir leis na coláistí, agus ní gá imní ar bith a bheith ar mhuintir na nollscoileanna i dtaobh an méid a bhí le rá ag an Teachta mar gheall ar na deontaisí seo.