Last night I made some reference to the disgraceful speech by Deputy Oliver Flanagan. I do not want to dwell unduly on this but there is one further comment I want to make, that is, that at one point in his speech Deputy Flanagan quoted from the Official Report the text of a question he put to me last December. When he came to give his version of the reply, he put down the Official Report, despite requests from this side of the House to quote from it, and proceeded to quote from a newspaper report of some months later which was corrected the following day and which was known to be incorrect. I mention this because it occurs to me it was worth the while of everybody concerned with this question to consider why some of the most outspoken critics of the policy in regard to small schools, such as Deputy Oliver Flanagan, should feel themselves obliged to descend to such unscrupulous tactics. One finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that there is a certain lack of confidence in the merits of their case.
When we come to consider the question of closing small schools, there are two main aspects of the matter to be considered. First, there is the question of whether small schools should be closed and, secondly, the question of the mechanics of carrying this out and in particular the efficacy or otherwise of a transport system.
Now, if we consider first the question of whether such schools should be closed or not, I want to make it quite clear that this decision was not arrived at lightly, that it was announced here in Dáil Eireann and that it was arrived at as a result of the years of experience of the inspectors of the Department of Education. I also want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the decision implies no criticism whatsoever of the teachers in small schools. An attempt has been made to misrepresent the position and to suggest that I and my Department in arriving at this decision are criticising standards of teachers in small schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that some of the best teachers in this country are teaching in small schools. If they were not, these schools would probably have been closed a long time ago.
What I am saying is that we are handicapping good teachers by making them teachers in one- or two-teacher schools, that if they had the facilities of larger schools available to them, they could do much more for their students than they do at present. Indeed, the fact that they have done as well as they have in such difficult circumstances is of itself a very considerable tribute to their ability as teachers. The main reason for the difficulties that arise in small schools is quite obvious, that is, that in a one-teacher school, you have one teacher handling six, or possibly seven classes; in a two-teacher school, one teacher is handling, say, three classes at the one time, each of them doing a different subject at the same time. It is true that the classes are much smaller than in other schools, in most of the small schools anyway, but the question is: does this compensate for the fact that the teacher is trying to conduct three or more classes at the one time? Is it not obvious that we are not giving the teacher a fair chance in asking him or her to do this? This is the basic reason for the closing of small schools but the question then arises: this is all very well in theory but does it work out in practice in this way?
Any evidence we have shows that it does. We have been told here of the many people who are the products of one- or two-teacher schools who have aquitted themselves very well in all walks of life. There is no doubt that this is true but I have not heard many dwelling on the many thousands of children who have come from these schools who have not done well. After all, our concern should be with all the children and not the particularly bright and talented ones only. We all know of cases of children who have come from schools such as this who did not get a fair chance. Somebody pointed out here that unfortunately many of these people are those who will most likely have to emigrate, and had to emigrate heretofore, and this is true. We do not hear about them, or what happens to them, or at least we do not hear very much, but I have, since I embarked on this policy, had a number of letters from emigrants in Britain, people who had attended small schools which are in process of being closed. They described the conditions under which they were educated in terms which were frightening. Subsequently I checked in the Department and verified that such descriptions were not inaccurate. The general burden of such letters was: "Do not be put off; keep on and close that school. My only regret is that it was not done 25 years ago when I was there." I do not say that this is representative of all small schools but it is at least as representative as the argument about those who have done very well coming from small schools.
It is suggested that this decision has been arrived at by me who am a city man, who knows nothing about rural Ireland. I do not claim to be an expert on rural Ireland but I do know a great deal more about it than many of the critics give me credit for. Furthermore, I am advised in this matter by people who have had long experience of education, some of whom are products of one- and two-teacher schools. I have available to me the experience of approximately 60 inspectors who are visiting these schools daily, who know what is going on in these schools from day to day. We have found that the majority of the school managers with whom we have consulted in regard to the closing of schools have been in favour of closing these schools. These are school managers in rural Ireland, managing schools in rural Ireland. Are these completely out of touch with what is happening? Are the inspectors ignorant of what is going on in the small schools? Let us have a little reason in this matter.
Reference has been made to the report Investment in Education and an effort has been made to decry the findings of this on the basis that they are bounded by economic considerations. It is quite true that the general terms of reference are economic but it is very difficult when one studies a matter such as this, with reference to education, to stick entirely to economics. The findings of this Report in regard to small schools are summarised in Chapter Nine, paragraphs 79, 80 and 81:
As regards the possible benefits which result from this pattern it was seen that large schools perform best at the scholarship examinations, irrespective of location. The large schools can provide special preparation for the examination and there is no evidence that this is counter-balanced by the more favourable pupil/teacher ratios and smaller school classes in the smaller schools.
There are some indications also that the progression of pupils is slower in the smaller schools, so that on balance pupils of the smaller schools take longer to complete the full course. The reasons for this are not immediately clear but are not apparently due entirely to differences in age of starting school.
While we have no information on the structural conditions of the various sizes of schools, it will have been noted that small schools have far less satisfactory sanitary and drinking facilities, a high percentage of open fires, a minimum of special equipment and audio-visual aids and virtually no special rooms. And yet, per pupil place they are more costly to erect and the costliest to maintain. It was also observed that the pupil of a smaller school was likely to have a narrower range of subject available to him.
I am not aware of any reasoned attempt by anybody to dispute those findings.