I entirely agree with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Anyway it is an effort by the Minister to denigrate the work that has for the last 30 or 40 years been accomplished by the vocational education committees. As far as we are concerned as public representatives and Members of this House we must and we should resist this intrusion on the rights of parents and public representatives as regards vocational education. If it was left in the hands of the various Ministers and the Department it would still be in the doldrums because I know that the hand of progressive vocational education committees throughout this country for 15, 20 or 25 years has been stayed by the Department of Education and by different Ministers for Education. Progressive ideas and ideals they had for encouraging vocational education, for building new schools, were thwarted at every turn and many committees were held up for a long number of years. It is wrong now that those people who held up progress in the past should try to take over from those who helped to build up vocational education.
I believe that on those boards we should still have the public representatives and the parents' representatives. Public representatives, such as county councillors, are the unpaid slaves and servants of the people. They have been responsible since the foundation of the State for raising vocational education from what it was in 1927 to what it is today. They raised it from its infancy and built it up. They had all the trouble when it was going through its growing pains. They were responsible for building it up to what it is today. Now, when their work is coming to fruition, the Minister wants to hand it over to other organisations and to other people who took very little interest in it up to now. This is another move to take away from parents and public representatives their rights. We should be jealous of and guard the rights and the powers that we have on those bodies as representatives of the parents, of the public, of the ratepayers and of the taxpayers.
I believe it wrong that religious bodies have not got representation on those boards. Enough gratitude has not been given to religious bodies for the wonderful work they have accomplished as regards education over the last 40 years. They stepped into the breach when the State was unable or unwilling to do it. Great thanks is due to them but they do not seem to be getting it or the recognition to which they are entitled. We should do our part to see that at least they get due thanks and due recognition for what they have done.
This has been condemned by committees —I think all committees—who have studied it so far. In Carlow a resolution was proposed by a Mr. Little and seconded by Deputy Nolan and adopted. I think this same resolution has been adopted by many other committees throughout the country. The resolution stated:
That this Committee finds the whole constitution of the proposed Council and Board of Management repugnant to the 1930 Vocational Education Act and calls on the Minister for Education to bring the administration of Regional Technical Colleges more into line with that Act; in the meantime, that this Committee make no nomination to the proposed College Council, further, that the CEO be asked to get in touch with the Irish Vocational Education Association and point out to that body that this Committee had rejected the proposed Board and Council and had asked that the matter be taken up by the IVEA with the Minister in order to discuss the whole question of the administration of Regional Technical Colleges, it being pointed out to the Irish Vocational Education Association that this is a matter of national importance.
I believe it is a matter of national importance. Today we want the co-operation of all concerned and we object to this arrogant and dictatorial attitude of a Minister. Instead of helping and encouraging education, it will only retard it. We appeal to the Minister now to change his mind and to give representation to those who have worked hard over the years for education in this country.
The letter from the Department continued:
It is further considered that a College Council should be set up in each College to recommend general policy for the running of the College, and that membership of the Council should be as follows:...
That is only a local Board. As I have stated on the major body the Vocational Education Committee were getting no representation, good, bad or indifferent. However, on this new council, which is only to recommend general policy, a very minor council, each vocational education committee representative of the college region is supposed to get one representative. They are only supposed to get one representative because the letter goes on to suggest that it is envisaged that normally the nominee of a vocational education committee to the College council would be its chief executive officer and that as far as possible the nominee of the Federated Union of Employers and of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions would be the representative of the local area.
We find now that the representative they are supposed to have is the vocational education officer. Therefore, we may take it, according to the circular, if the Minister has his way, neither on the board nor the college council will public representatives or representatives of the parents be allowed. That is a retrograde step and I would appeal to the Minister to mend his hand and give representation to those bodies.
Deputy Tully raised the question of buses in rural Ireland—buses that in some cases could carry 30 or 40 pupils and are carrying only 20 or 25 — passing by children on the roads to school. At the present time the State is paying a subsidy of £2 million to CIE, and I entirely agree with Deputy Tully and other Deputies who put forward the proposition that those buses should carry all those children. It looks completely wrong to see young children trudging along in the early morning in the dark and the buses passing them by carrying people who perhaps live within a few hundred yards of them. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this whole question.
Deputy Tully also mentioned what I think was a very important point, that is, the subsidising of poor families so that they could send their children to school until they are 16 years of age. That brings up the question of raising the school-leaving age to 16. We should like to know what is the Government's intention in that regard. Have they made up their minds, and when do they intend to raise the school-leaving age? As regards untrained teachers in schools, I believe many of these people have the vocation, and they are two, three, four, five years or, perhaps longer in schools. They should be given an opportunity of getting a full training. Some of them are getting it at the present time but all of them should get it.
Another point raised by Deputy Tully was the use of schools and halls. Different organisations like Macra na Feirme, dramatic classes or political parties, should get an opportunity of using those schools, where there are no halls for meetings. Unfortunately, the schools that are being closed in some areas are being torn down, and they should be made available to the people in the area who could turn them into local halls. If you have local halls in rural Ireland the young people can be encouraged to attend dramatic classes or to join voluntary organisations which would help to brighten life in the local village, to keep young people's minds occupied and encourage them to remain in their own area. It might be no harm to quote what the late Deputy O'Malley said when he was Minister for Education in relation to the use of schools as halls. I quote from column 757, volume 232 of the Official Report:
Some clubs have been started — what they call "clubs"— but they are grossly overcrowded. I would say to every Deputy, every elected representative and all those tremendous people who do voluntary work that if any of them who are interested in fostering youth activities feel that my Department might be reluctant to sanction the use of halls, they need have no fear in that regard. If any of them fear that my Department might be reluctant to do so — and I say this to the school managers, to the vocational education committees, to the owners of schools and to the Hierarchy down — they need have no fear in that regard. It would achieve a great deal for our youth, our young people. I see these halls lying idle for so long. They could be utilised for concerts, films, indoor amusements, billiards. They could have a little tea and mineral bar. There could be a lounge with television. Sports grounds are attached to almost all our schools. Frequently, there are playing-fields close to such halls. I am thinking of the desirability of facilities for boxing, physical training and so on.
I entirely agree with what the late Minister said there. Those facilities should be available for our young boys for boxing, football and so on. These various activities and sports help to bring out traits of character in our boys and girls that will afterwards prove valuable attributes in the battle of life. In one village in my own county there is a school which would make an excellent hall. The people are quite prepared to try to improve it but they would have to pay over £100 in rates which would be an excessive burden on them. It is important to encourage our youth to engage in games, hurling, football and other sports or if not to attend the halls and engage in other activities. There is so much juvenile delinquency in the country at the moment that it would be a good idea if the Minister could see his way to approach the Minister for Local Government to see if those halls could be given rate free to those people. Voluntary workers have heavy expenses. The expenses of keeping the building in a proper state would be heavy enough: the expense of wiring it for electricity, keeping a fire in it, maintaining billiard rooms and other clubrooms in it. These people should be encouraged in every way by the State, and the State should relieve them of the burden of rates.
After so many years of native government it is deplorable to see so many national schools in such a disgraceful state as they are in at the present time. In my own county there is a strike at a school beside me. This school was condemned 34 years ago. The parents now have the children out and nothing has been done either to settle the strike or improve the school and get the pupils back. There should be a crash programme to build schools immdeiately.
I know another school in the part of the constituency that was in Kildare but which was recently taken back, in Kinnegad. It cannot cater for all the pupils and the younger pupils are occupying an old, wet hall. This sort of thing should be avoided. It would be much better if the Department erected "prefabs". We purchased them for Mullingar Vocational Education Committee a few years ago. They were erected in a very short time and we have had no complaints from pupils or teachers. The "prefabs" seem to fulfil the purpose for which they were intended. We were told that if we were to get land to build additional rooms it would take five or six years. Instead, we put a proposal to the Department, which was sanctioned very quickly, and the "prefabs"— to hold, I think, well over 100 pupils — were erected in less than three weeks. Where you have bad, damp schools with rain coming through the roof, perhaps, I think "prefabs" should be erected as soon as possible.
I do not want to get into the argument about the merger but the jackboot mentality will not help education or the country generally. It was proved recently that the Irish people will not stand for high-handedness or dictation. The big stick will not gain the day now, in politics, education or elsewhere. What we want is co-operation, dialogue and co-ordination. The Minister should pause in his steps at present because you can lead the Irish people but you cannot drive them. Looking at the European or even the international situation today it was never more important to have co-operation between all sections of the community. We may have the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the farmers at each others' throats; we do not want the Minister for Education and the educationists in the same situation. We want all sections to co-operate with each other. The Minister should have second thoughts on this matter remembering that very often it is not what you do but how you do it that counts. He should call all concerned together for further consultation but should not try to force anything down their necks. If he does, it will fail. Things do not seem to be going so well and I do not want to add fuel to the fire, but if the Minister pauses for further consultation perhaps they may be able to hammer out an acceptable solution.
I suppose many parts of the country are seeking universities and we in the Midlands should stake our claim. I do not see why in the future we should not have a university for Mullingar and I stake that claim now.
One of the many problems regarding education, in my opinion, at present is the scarcity of qualified teachers at all levels. I suppose this shows there was not sufficient planning in the past but there is no use in blaming anybody for that. The result of the scarcity is shown in the disgracefully high pupil-teacher ratio which makes conditions impossible in many of our schools for both teachers and pupils. In primary education the national average pupil-teacher ratio is about 35 to 1 at present and this is merely an average concealing appalling ratios in places like Louth and Dublin where there are 40 pupils per teacher, or Westmeath where I think there are 38 per teacher. It is impossible for a teacher to impart maximum knowledge to classes of this size. The Minister said efforts were being made to deal with this problem, but as far as I can see these efforts do not seem to be meeting the success that educationists and we on this side of the House would like to see.
The Minister said the number on the rolls had increased by 4,000 from 30th June, 1966, to 30th June, 1967, but it should be remembered that, at the same time, the number of qualified teachers rose by 71 so that for every extra teacher there are 56 extra pupils and the position is becoming worse rather than better. At this rate it will take a long time to achieve classes of the acceptable size recognised by educationists and others with something like 20 pupils or fewer per class. To get the required number of teachers we must pay salaries in keeping with the importance of their role in the life of the country. This is something that cannot be over-estimated because any country's future is in the hands of the children and teachers can greatly affect the type of adult these children become.
A demonstration took place outside Leinster House recently and on my own behalf I should like to say that I was shocked at the behaviour of at least some of the students. If they had a little more education and were able to demonstrate it, it would be better for everybody. In fairness, I want to say that the vast majority behaved excellently but there seems to be a small group trying to get control of that body. We have that element in the country at present. While I welcome peaceful demonstration, those responsible should be very careful that they are not led into wrong channels. They should try to root out the undesirable element as soon as possible because, if it remains, it will do them no good nor will it do any good for education. Those students should realise that they will be the leaders, the doctors, solicitors, teachers and men of tomorrow. Many of them will, perhaps, be politicians in this House. I believe that more is to be expected from them and that they should do their part and do their best to control that unruly element in their midst.
In secondary education we are faced, at the present time, with a shortage of teachers. I think there were 377 more registered teachers in 1967-68 than in 1966-67 but there were 15,000 more pupils; thus, there were 39 extra pupils for every extra teacher.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is an inadequate supply of teachers and, in addition to this, the proposed plan for an advanced Leaving Certificate will increase even more the need for extra teachers. We should, therefore, endeavour to increase the number of secondary teachers as quickly as possible. This, however, I cannot see happening unless we are prepared to pay them attractive salaries. I do not believe that the proposed new wage level will be attractive enough to increase the supply of teachers to any great extent. In fact, I understand that the secondary teachers have rejected the proposed salary increases. The sooner that the Minister and the teachers come to an agreement on this particular problem the better it will be for the children and for all concerned.
Much has been said during the past few years in relation to the closing of two-teacher schools. The Minister proposed two alternatives for Deputies to consider. Speaking at column 1775 of Volume 236 of the Dáil Debates he said:
On the one hand, sentiment and tradition seek to continue the small school with its restricted curriculum and its overworked teacher—the inheritance from another age and an alien government. On the other hand, our policy, framed by us for our own children, offers better teaching, a more varied curriculum, better preparation for the new educational opportunities available in the post-primary school, the prospect of more regular attendance, supervised and free transport.
In this statement, the Minister was very unfair to his opponents in this matter. There is more than sentiment and tradition attached to the desire of any community to preserve their local schools. It should be remembered that schoolteachers play a very important role in any community and particularly in a small one.
In such areas, the teachers, together with the clergy, often fill the role of community leaders. In very many areas the priest and the teachers endeavour to form clubs such as dramatic clubs, hurling clubs, football clubs and so on. They also help to encourage the preservation of the Irish language. No village wishes to lose its local school. By taking teachers out of our small towns and, particularly, out of our small villages, the Minister is in fact hitting community life in those areas. It should be remembered, too, that the reason why teachers, parents and public representatives are fighting to have these schools retained is that everything in the parish revolves around the school.
In some villages, perhaps, the small post offices have already gone and if the school goes there will be nothing left but the pub. This is bad for rural Ireland. There is no evidence to prove that the two-teacher schools have not been a success; in my opinion, they have been a success and the Minister should think twice before closing them because, as I have said, the community life is built around them. If the closing down of these schools continues, irreparable harm will be done to rural Ireland and there will be a further acceleration of the flight from the land.
Similarly, the school buildings are very important in those areas, particularly if there is no bigger hall. In many cases the schools are being used as meeting places for the various clubs and societies which exist in the area. Another reason why these schools should be preserved is that parents very often do not wish their children to have to travel long distances to school, even though such transport is supervised at the present time. However, they prefer, for different reasons —reasons that have been talked about many times in this House and I do not wish to talk about them again— to have the local school within a few miles of the home.
As regards the standard of education provided in schools of various sizes I believe it has yet to be proved that the standard is lower in two-teacher schools than it is in three, four or five-teacher schools. The Minister has censored Deputies for putting forward cases for the preservation of two-teacher schools in particular instances but it is difficult to see what is wrong with a Deputy, who is a public representative, voicing his opinion with the consent of the parents in this matter.
I believe this is democracy in action. The Minister does not like opinions to be put forward which are contrary to his own. In fact, he has described those who have put forward such opinions as being in need of reasoned guidance. Perhaps it is the Minister himself who is in need of reasoned guidance at the present time.
The Minister should remember that it is the parents and not he who are the prime educators of the children and he should be trying constantly to ensure that their opinions reach him. He should not ignore them or make fun of them as he has done in the past. In voicing the opinions of the parents Deputies are merely fulfilling their role as public representatives.
As regards the university merger which has been spoken about, I do not wish to say very much but I should like to welcome the move to democratise the universities by the formation of staff-student committees. These have been formed now and their power, perhaps, is very limited; but at least it is a step in the right direction. University authorities are beginning to realise that there is more to a university than the senior staff. Here again I believe that there could be and should be more co-operation between teachers and students. The junior staff in all our colleges should have a greater say in the running of the colleges. The present ridiculous system whereby these people are appointed on a year to year basis deters them from criticising administration. It is obvious that there are many points deserving of criticism. It is very important that all the staff, as well as all the students, should be free to voice criticism.
To say the least of it, the method of appointment of senior staff is very unsatisfactory. It involves voting by some hundreds of people. Unfortunately, on many occasions politics enter into it. It is time an end was put to all that. Experience and evidence suggests that many first class teachers and professors are reluctant to apply for these posts because of the system of election.
Recently the Minister introduced a system of grants designed to enable students to participate in higher education. While we welcome the system, it has some faults. It does not assist students in any institute of higher education but a university. Obviously, this discriminates against students who wish to become primary teachers. Not only is the Minister not encouraging students to become primary teachers but they are actually being discouraged. Next, it discriminates against people in higher education in so far as no effort is made to help them and, thirdly, it hits at those who sat for the leaving certificate prior to 1968. This scheme discriminates against pre-1968 leaving certificate students who need our assistance.
There are students who got six, seven or eight honours in their leaving certificate last year or the year before and because they knew of the promise of this grants scheme, their parents scraped everything they had together in order to send the child to the university in the expectation that we would have free education after a year or two there. Many such people would like to see the grants scheme retrospective. The Minister should consider making it retrospective to two years or even to one year. I know some people who are now very hard up indeed because their expectation of free education after a year or two at the university has been dashed. It is a great pity that that should be so and I appeal to the Minister to consider retrospection in respect of students already attending the university for the past year or two.
I welcome what is being done and what has been done in the field of education. I recommend the Minister to be very careful as regards the Universities merger, to stay his hand and not to continue to act in what I consider to be the arrogant and dictatorial manner in which he is now acting.