Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Nov 1968

Vol. 237 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £1,667,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1969, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Oideachais (lena n-áirítear Forais Eolaíochta agus Ealaíon), le haghaidh Seirbhísí Ilghnéitheacha áirithe Oideachais agus Cultúir, agus chun Ildeontais-i-gCabhair a íoc.
—(Minister for Education).

Pé rud atá le rá agam maidir leis na Meastacháin seo spreagann sé ó mhian chun cabhrú leis an Aire agus le lucht córais riartha oideachais. Tá meas mór agam ar an Aire agus tá meas mór agam ar na daoine atá i mbun na hoibre agus ar na h-oifigí a chabhraíonn leis an Aire agus a chomhairlíonn leis sa mhéid atá le déanamh aige ní amháin sa Tí seo ach ar fud na tíre.

At the outset I should like to say, as I have said to the Minister, that the sentiments that I would wish to express in regard to education are ones which spring from conviction and which I would hope would be helpful in the interests of the educational system. I have the greatest respect for the Minister and for past Ministers and for the officials of the Department who guide and assist the Minister in the very wide field of education. Sometimes there are opinions held on matters of education which one should express. In expressing them we hope that they would not be taken as being harmful or hurtful in the educational sense.

Everybody will agree that education is one of the great social needs, that it is concerned with human beings, their upbringing, their guidance and eventual wellbeing. We must always remember that education is the primary responsibility of the parents. The State can assist in this matter but can never supplant. The parents' right to decide the type and location of their children's education is sacred and should be inviolate for as long as the parents are carrying out their responsibility. Nowadays it has become fashionable for what are often called the bureaucrats, who may or may not be educators or sufficiently highly educated to merit such description, to abrogate the rights of parents and pupils and those engaged in the practice of education. For too long the opinions of such people, in every field of education, from primary to university level, are being handed down, not alone to parents but to the teaching bodies and even, in regard to administration, at vocational level. This approach is being masqueraded as being always in the interests of the pupils, the children. This is much too naïve and my hope is that what is not being sought is an attempted bureaucratic control of education for economic reasons only.

A further comment I should like to make on the general context of education is that in planning programmes and arranging study courses, texts and examinations, or even timetables, the least concern of the educational machine is for the school authorities —the parents, the teachers and, needless to say, the children. One poses the question of what one would think of the general staff of an army who planned either an offensive or defensive exercise without asking the opinion of those at field level, the actual participants in the exercise.

This is what is wrong with education today. The school authorities at primary level, the vocational education committees and the religious orders, are never effectively consulted. The teaching bodies—again, this is more true of the post-primary level—have no real say in the guidance of pupils. They have no voice in what is desirable and attainable at any given stage of the pupils' progress. Lip-service is paid to the dedicated efforts of educators, religious and lay, who have been providing good education for our children for such a long time but, at the same time, the machine warns the school authority of the necessity to have viable education.

I should like to ask the Minister at this stage what is viability in the field of education, in the field of the educating of human minds. Who dares say to a parent under our Constitution that he or she has no right to send a child, boy or girl, to the school of his or her choice? Who dares say that the schools, particularly at primary level, are not progressive, efficient educators in the real sense? Who will deny the real value in the educational tradition, who will deny the standards attained by the religious orders for more than 50 years? Does all this mean nothing where the mind of the schoolchild is concerned?

Viability is bandied around, particularly in the case of the new comprehensive schools. Does it mean that pupils at various levels of education, of ability, of educational progress, can be educated effectively, or more effectively in larger units? It should be made clear that here what is the concern primarily is the economic factor, not the educational factor, and here I pose a question to the Minister in this respect. Would those who would wish to impose this type of system—those who would deny the immensely valuable factor of tradition in education, those who would decry the level of education in our existing schools, particularly the boarding schools—be willing to debate publicly this issue with those who hold the opposite point of view?

Where is the equality of opportunity at primary level for our small schools in our new era? Small schools are being closed, pupils are being transferred by bus to other larger schools and on the way they pass children, often of tender age, and refuse them a seat to school. These children arrive tired, sometimes weak, at those schools and they are expected to keep up with the others. Since we have introduced transport for schoolchildren, let all avail of it even if it is provided at subsidised level.

Where is the equality of opportunity where equipment is concerned as between the vocational and the primary schools? Vocational committees have provided better equipment and better schools but those at primary level must improvise. What is the use of introducing fresh subjects into an already overcrowded programme in an already overcrowded day at primary level? There is lip-service to the desirability of a wider curriculum but the curriculum is incapable of improvement in present circumstances without a lowering of standards in other subjects.

What attempt is being made by the administrators of the educational system to consult those most vitally concerned—the parents, the teaching bodies, the church authorities who have a deep and vested interest in education? I should like to see more evidence of attempts being made by those in charge of administration, those in charge of the public finances in the educational field, to consult with those elements. It is not sufficient that those in the Department of Education, who are able administrators, and I wish to stress that publicly, should talk about co-operation. They have no more right to dictate in matters of education than those who are just as educationally competent to judge what is best. Though temporarily they may hold the purse, at the same time, they must realise they are using the money of the people who are most vitally concerned. I am sure no Minister wants to hand down decisions and direct that they be implemented in circumstances where there is neither co-operation nor dialogue.

This is all the more true in the field of higher education and here, if I may be parochial, I should like to stress the claim of the district which I represent, Limerick, to a university. I hope the Minister will concede that this growing region, economically and otherwise, has a large potential of students; and that here there is an opportunity for diversification of university education. I hope he will concede that this region has earned its right to a university and I hope he will not delay his decision on this matter for too long.

Everybody will agree that you cannot just will a university system. Those concerned, at all levels, must be consulted effectively. Their co-operation must be genuinely sought and must be genuinely given. I stress that their co-operation must be genuinely sought and that it must be genuinely given. You may refuse to think about the arguments such people might put up, but that is no remedy for the problem which exists.

Let us have educational progress. The Minister and, perhaps, some of his advisers, may think that anybody who advances a viewpoint which is distinct or opposite to the bureaucratic idea, is hindering educational progress. All one can say in that respect—one does not like to quote too much from the Bible—is that this is the case of seeing the mote in one's brother's eye but not seeing the beam in one's own. Progress will not come from dictation. At all levels it comes from co-operation. While those in charge of education at central level may think in terms of economics, will they pause for a moment to consider the vital economic factor at the end of education at all levels? What then? What job opportunities are there? Let us have progress in education, let us have forward ideas but let them be based on solid educational grounds.

I would hope in a Christian society such as ours we would always remember that the end purpose of education is the fullest development of the God-given gift of the mind and of the soul. The proper development of intellect and character can only be achieved in an educational system which values these qualities above all others.

One final thought I would ask the Minister to bear in mind is that the community needs a student body which is capable of promoting the students' good: of fostering diligence, patience, tolerance, dedication and a regard for the rights of others. Likewise, the student body needs the community to understand their aspirations; to be tolerant of their exuberance at times, and to be prepared to invest a proper proportion of community wealth in what is our most potent force for good, our most cherished possession, our dedicated youth.

Níor mhaith liom críochnú gan tagairt a dhéanamh do cheist na Gaeilge sa chóras oideachais. Tá súil agam go nglacfaidh gach éinne sa tír seo leis an smaoineamh gurab í an teanga an rud is tábhachtaí atá againn, an rud a dheineann idirdhealú idir muintir na tíre seo agus muintir gach tíre eile. Is í an teanga an seod is luachmhaire dá bhfuil againn. Ní ar scríobhadh na teangan is cóir dúinn an bhéim a chur ach ar labhairt na teangan. Ní foláir an teanga a labhairt gan locadh le pointí gramadaí. Bá cheart do na tuismightheorí cabhrú leis na páistí agus iad a mhealladh chun an Ghaeilge a labhairt ní amháin ar scoil ach taobh amuigh den scoil—sna siopaí, ina dtithe féin, ar pháirc an imeartha agus chuile áit eile ionnas go leathnóidh úsáid na teangan ar fud na tíre. Má dheinimid é sin sílim go rachfaidh sé chun leas na tíre agus go mbeidh dul ar aghaidh mar is cóir ann.

I am glad of the opportunity to speak briefly on this Estimate because I believe that in a short time the whole educational picture in this country has changed. I believe it can be said in time that the educational revolution in Ireland started in the 1960's under the late Deputy Donogh O'Malley and certainly continued in the 1970's under the present Minister for Education. It is wonderful to see the keen awareness and interest of the ordinary people in these changes in education today, because if this awareness and interest did not exist, then their co-operation and their goodwill would not be forthcoming, and the absence of it would have a detrimental effect on everybody.

I should like to congratulate the Minister for Education, Deputy Lenihan, on continuing the tremendous progress in all branches of education since he became Minister. The great difficulty of his position, particularly in taking over the Department of Education after the tragic death of Deputy Donogh O'Malley, was obvious to all. It was publicly said that nobody could take up the reins after the death of Deputy Donogh O'Malley, but the Minister's great efforts to live up to the O'Malley standards are clearly showing handsome and profitable returns. I wish the Minister every success and I am sure he will make even greater educational strides in the future.

Dealing briefly with the primary education picture which the Minister presented to us in his introductory speech, I am glad to see that the number of students this year in primary education has gone up by over 4,000. It is also encouraging to see there is an increase of over 70 teachers in the primary education branch. Many changes have taken place in primary education. There were 112 small schools closed down in the last 12 months which brings the total number of small schools closed to almost 500.

The Minister did ask all Deputies to refrain from participating in the local controversies that occasionally arise when the Department propose to close down a small school. He has asked us to lend our support to his Department. He said if we did not, we would be confusing the parents whose real need is reasoned guidance and encouragement to seize these new educational opportunities for their children. I agree fully with this, but I must say that a public meeting of parents should be held before the closing announcement would be made by the Department. It is only right that an explanation of all the reasons why these schools must be closed should be given by a spokesman for the Department of Education. I believe the people are always reasonable and more so when their children's future is at stake. The system that is at present employed of just informing the manager of the school who tells the public that the school will be closed is not a good one and causes confusion among parents.

Dealing again with primary education, I welcome the record card and the progress card systems which have been introduced into the national school. I have no doubt they will be successful. Of course, their success depends on the co-operation and the goodwill of the teachers, and I am sure this will be forthcoming. It was also very encouraging to see, especially over the past 12 months, that additional grants were given for the heating, cleaning and painting of the national schools. I believe there was something like a 50 per cent increase in the amount of money given for this purpose. Last September the national school managers were given a clear go ahead by the Minister and power to act in regard to the installation of heating and sanitary facilities in our national schools. It was a very wise step and one that was welcomed by managers and parents; I do know that some availed of this offer. Again, I should like to repeat what the Minister said in his introductory speech, the hope that something more will be done this year. I suggest the Minister's inspectors should be asked to report to him on the heating and sanitary facilities in national schools. If this were done the more urgent cases could be attended to quickly. If that happened the rat-infested refrigerator type of national school such as the people in Kerry had some months ago need not exist.

The amount of money allocated for the free book scheme is almost £87,000, an increase of £81,000. This is a very welcome scheme for national schoolchildren from second class to sixth class and the number benefiting is very large, something like 70,000. This scheme could not be implemented but for the co-operation of teachers in national schools as it is hoped the scheme will be administered by the principal in each school. The books should be given to the students free of charge for the year on loan rather than permanently. The better idea is to give the books to the children for the time they need them because these books are normally used for one year and I suggest the books could then be collected and used again by other students in the next year.

It is very encouraging to see that under the heading of secondary education there is the very substantial increase of £4 million on the £10 million allocated last year and to find that this increase comes under separate headings, fees, transport services, capitation grants, building grants, teachers' salaries, school equipment grants and capital expenditure on comprehensive schools. A very important point is that we are told now that 60,000 new pupil places will be required in post-primary schools in the next ten years and this will cost about £23 million. This together with plans before the Department for secondary school buildings which on its own amounts to £20 million, represents a huge amount of money that must be found to provide the required number of places in the next ten years. In dealing with this huge problem the Minister and the Department are very wise in having created a post-primary building unit which will have responsibility for the development and planning of school buildings. I suggest that the building unit should start immediately with an effort to create at least 6,000 new pupil places a year, seeing that 60,000 are needed in the next ten years.

We have more secondary teachers this year. I think the number is up by 377, and we have 521 teachers in receipt of special supplementary allowances, probationary teachers. I think the probationary teacher system with supplementary allowances should be abolished immediately because young teachers leaving universities or training colleges and going to teach in vocational or national schools start off at £700 or £800 while secondary teachers who complete a three or four-year course and get a degree and then, perhaps, do an extra year for the higher diploma come out on a special supplementary allowance for probationary teachers. I know that the allowance has been improved and was increased quite recently but I think it should be done away with completely and, if it were, we would have far more teachers in the country and far more are needed particularly for post-primary education.

At present the young teacher who qualifies has the prospect of starting off and getting this special supplementary allowance and because it is so low naturally decides to emigrate and of those who emigrate many find it difficult to return and those who do return properly qualified after teaching abroad will not get recognition for their work abroad except in certain specified countries. I suggest that the Minister should seriously consider granting recognition to properly qualified teachers who have taught in any country if they wish to come home and take up positions here.

The amended scheme of grants introduced last year for the furnishing and equipment of school laboratories and special classrooms for practical work was very welcome. Every opportunity is being given and all facilities provided for secondary schools to furnish and equip their laboratories and practical classrooms. Many schools have availed of the scheme but I think many more applied for grants and their applications were never processed. The hold-up was a bit long and the grants did not come through in time for the start of the present academic year. I am glad to see an increased amount allocated for this purpose. I trust that will eliminate the delay if the delay was due to that cause.

Excellent progress has been made in regard to vocational education and £7 million is provided for the nine regional technical colleges, six of which are to be partly in operation by the beginning of the 1969 school year. During the debate we had a question and answer session between a Deputy from Limerick and the Minister for Education as regards the date of commencement of work on the school for Limerick. While I do not want to have a question and answer session I urge the Minister to deal with this matter as quickly as possible. No mention was made in the Minister's statement of an increase in the number of schools under the heading of vocational education or an increase in student numbers. I believe there is a very severe shortage of properly qualified teachers for vocational schools. We are now close to the Christmas holidays and schools are still advertising for teachers. We have unqualified persons doing their best to cope with the situation. This is a very serious problem and it is most unfair to the students, their parents and the vocational system. There still exists keen competition for students between secondary and vocational schools. Canvassing for pupils is diminishing and I hope this practice will cease. It should be discouraged. Something should be done about the terrible problem of shortage of vocational teachers as quickly as possible.

Now, of course, we have the common intermediate certificate. I believe that the results of the intermediate certificate from the technical schools should be publicised in the local press in the same way as the results of the secondary schools' examinations are published. I say this for the benefit of parents who may think that the secondary school system is any better than the vocational system. There is no need now for this snobbery, this distinction between secondary and vocational schools. The publishing of the results of the intermediate certificate from the vocational schools would help in this respect.

With regard to one of the biggest topics of the day in education, the merger, I should like to wish the Minister every success in this respect. We should remember that he has the support of almost everybody in the country and I hope that everything will turn out to the satisfaction of all as quickly as possible.

I shall not dwell on the case of a university for Limerick because this case has been put forward time and time again. We must all agree that a genuine case exists for this university and the Government's decision in this respect would be most welcome by all at this stage. I believe that the Minister for Education, himself, is in favour of this university for Limerick and I hope that he will be able to convince the Government of the validity of this claim and I hope that a decision will be made as quickly as possible.

I do not wish to add further to the Minister's educational problem but I would like to kick the ball, as it were, to suggest to the Minister the possibility of establishing other universities, particularly in the midlands and in the west of the country. This idea might be referred to the Higher Education Authority for their consideration. Perhaps the idea of decentralisation might be extended to education. The population of UCD at the present time is approximately 10,000 and the population of Trinity is not very far behind that. Therefore, I would seriously suggest that consideration be given to the idea of decentralisation in this field.

With regard to the school transport system I should like to say that very often older members of families receive free transport to the post-primary centre whereas younger members of the same family are not eligible for transport even though the bus passes their primary school which may be two or three miles away and, very often, there is more than adequate accommodation available on the bus. Parents in such circumstances find it very difficult to understand this apparent anomaly. Perhaps, some compromise scheme could be devised to cater for such cases although it may present some administrative difficulties.

To quote the Estimate "no longer can it be said that any child is denied access to post-primary education because his parents cannot afford it". This might be said to have been true where fees and the cost of books and transport were concerned but I think a situation now arises in families of the lower income groups where the cost of these things are not the predominant factor but rather the economic circumstances of the home which forced the parents to terminate the school career of a promising student so that he may take up employment to supplement the family income. We know this to happen in a number of cases. The providing of free facilities in such cases is of little use until such time as a scheme can be devised to help out here.

It is, of course, appreciated that this is a problem that will be very difficult to overcome but, since the free selectivity book scheme has worked so well, perhaps a selectivity scheme to help parents in the circumstances I have mentioned might also be worked out with particular reference to students who are suited for continuing their education to centre cycle levels. However, such a scheme would be a matter for the economic planners but surely it is a situation that requires looking into.

The co-operation between secondary and vocational schools that has been mooted for some time now seems to have achieved a great deal of success and a great amount of goodwill and understanding has been generated on both sides such as the exchange of teaching services and the individual exchange of pupils that have been taking place at an ever increasing rate. This co-operation has led to the provision of a wider range of subjects and a better service to the pupils of a particular area particularly now that the co-operation is extending over the first three years of the junior cycle in any area.

The need is being felt by the authorities of both systems for clarification of what has always been termed up to now common entry. The authorities of both systems feel, ironically enough, that if they are to achieve the full rationalisation and integration desired by the Department, a definitive statement must soon be issued setting out clearly what is meant by common entry and how such common entry will affect the administrative setup of both systems which, it will be appreciated has, during the years through historical circumstances, and otherwise, evolved along different lines.

As I have said, there is a great deal of goodwill on both sides, as has been proved during the last three years but a point has now been reached when what might be called administrative blocks are hampering the future development of co-operation and a confusion is growing among school managers at local level, lacking a definitive statement of policy by higher administrative personnel.

It is appreciated that it is not easy to iron out the systems, customs and traditions of two completely differently evolved schemes overnight, but at least some efforts should be made to assure the school administrators at local level that these issues are not being dodged and that they are, so to speak, being left to work out their own salvation.

Goodwill in this modern age is a very precious commodity and it is to be feared that the present frustration, through lack of definitive statement of policy by higher authorities, will tend to dissipate this goodwill, which if once lost, will be more than doubly difficult to get back. We would hope that an early and a clear statement by the higher administrators in the Department of Education will help to clear the air and give added thrust to a movement towards integration which already in many areas is well advanced

Great credit is due to the school authorities who have sunk their own prejudices, involuntarily built up over the years and who have now come together with a genuine intention of furthering the interest of all young people in their area. I think it would be a pity if such altruistic efforts on their part should come to nought, through administrative indecision. Prudence is always to be commended in entering into new territory but, if the dynamic approach of school authorities at local level is to be thwarted by conservatism in the guise of prudence, then it would be a great tragedy for our young people. If some mistakes are made through the adoption of a more dynamic approach at higher administrative level, then I feel these will be more than compensated for by the overall good that will accrue to the nation not only in the saving of resources which such an integration would bring but in the vastly increased educational opportunities open to our young people.

Many complaints have recently been received from teachers and managers of schools that, when ordering books, the booksellers and, indeed, the publishers, say the book is not yet to hand and that it will take a few more weeks. Two or three months may go by in the start of a school year before certain books are available. This is not good. It would appear that the publishers are not advised in time by the Department of Education as to the syllabus, and so on, and therefore have not adequate time to prepare these books. It takes anything from a year to 18 months to prepare a textbook from the time it is commissioned to the time it appears in print. Greater liaison would seem to be required between the Department of Education and the various educational publishers.

Students who receive free school books discard them at the end of the school year in the knowledge that they will get a fresh supply of books the following year. If they wish, they may sell these books through the school authorities but, as in the case of all free schemes, some students become careless about the whole business and do not bother to sell them second hand because they do not need to purchase new books for the following year. It could be argued that when a person gets free books he should hand them back to the school authorities at the end of the school year so that they can be passed on to students who are coming in. Certainly a great saving would be effected in that way. The direction in the Departmental circular is that the books are completely the property of the student and that he is entitled to dispose of them as he wishes. It might be no harm to re-examine this system to see whether we should lend the books to the schoolchildren and, with the goodwill of the school authorities, have those books passed on to children coming forward the following year.

Tremendous progress has been made in the educational field. Full marks should be given to the Minister for Education and his officials. One meets with first-class co-operation in any approach to the Department. The Minister's officials are very encouraging, particularly to young Deputies, and give them help and advice in connection with any problems they may have in the field of education. I trust that this progress will continue and will even be bettered in the years to come. In the capable hands of Deputy Brian Lenihan, I feel the education of our youth is safe.

We all realise that the Minister for Education, his officials and the Party he represents are anxious to ensure that everything possible will be done to improve our educational facilities. Where we differ is in the method. It would be stupid for anybody to think that the Minister for Education or his Party would deliberately do anything which they knew not to be in the best educational interests of our children and which they knew would impede educational progress. Whatever criticisms I make are directed at the system and are not intended as criticism of the Minister, unless I especially refer to him as having done something which I consider to be wrong. Very often, Ministers take umbrage at comments by Opposition Deputies and tend to feel that remarks are personal attacks.

I agree with a lot of what Deputy Collins has said. However, a few items need comment. The idea has been spread that Fianna Fáil thought up the free school transport system, that it costs a colossal sum of money and, therefore, that Fianna Fáil are entitled to a halo for having introduced it. I give full credit for the idea of free school transport but it has its shortcomings. CIE are subsidised by the State. Any income they receive will naturally tend to reduce that subsidy. There are expenses which CIE have to meet and which they would not have met if the buses were lying idle but CIE would, in any event, get a very substantial amount of this money by way of subsidy. Therefore, free school transport does not in fact cost the colossal sum which is sometimes indicated by Fianna Fáil.

The question of entitlement to free school transport is a very thorny problem. I have had lengthy correspondence with the Minister on this point. I do not like to take up the time of a Minister on matters which should be dealt with in other ways but very often the only way is to raise a matter directly with the Minister. Whenever I have done so, I have received nothing but courtesy from the Minister and indeed, from his Department. There is the distinction, however, that I get an immediate reply from the Minister whereas if I write to the Department it takes weeks if not months before a decision can be taken on a simple matter. This is something that I do not think is right. An early decision is essential when matters are raised with the Department.

The matter I raised with the Minister related to a very small child who was entitled to free transport to the school at which he had started. Because there was a school nearer to him the Department indicated that the regulations were so rigid that he could not go along with all the other children who lived near him and who were within 100 yards or a quarter of a mile of where the transport picked them up, but that he would have to go in the opposite direction to another school. I explained all this in detail but the Minister said that the boy should not be taken to the school in which he started but to the other one. This may be a grand way of keeping up attendances but I do not think it is humane. The matter was settled by the teacher in the school agreeing to drive the boy to school. I am very grateful to him for this and, as long as that situation remains, the problem is solved.

This is a typical example of where the rigidity of a Government Department is being brought to bear on a small child. How can anyone explain to a child of five or six years that the Department say that he must go to A school although he originally started school life in B school? Another problem which has arisen is in regard to the child who is just inside the limit. The bus picks up children from a certain house which is only 20 yards down from him and which is outside the limit. It does not look so well if on a bad morning you see the school bus picking up children at a certain point and leaving others. This is no fault of the Minister or anybody else, but very often the children being picked up are children with transport of their own. Before this they had been travelling in their own transport to school and giving a lift to children within the limit. The bus now passes out these little toddlers who have to walk to school and who would have been getting a lift if school transport had not been provided. The State says that they cannot be carried and, therefore, they cannot be. This makes the thing absolutely ridiculous. If there was no room on the bus that would be all right; but when one sees a bus which is only half full arriving at the school it does make the system look ridiculous.

Another problem with which I am familiar relates to a family of four children who have to travel over three miles to the school and the school bus picks them up. The eldest boy was a delicate boy who had asthma and when he reached the age of 11 he had to walk to school while his three brothers were carried by bus. The bus is more than half empty when it reaches the school but this poor little fellow with asthma has either to stay at home or walk to school. This is an inhuman approach. I do not know whether I should blame the Department or those at local level who are charged with the responsibility of operating this system, but somebody is at fault. Some officials of the Department could well spend some time checking on these weaknesses in the scheme and attempting to iron them out. These are the things which make people bitter. Can you explain to a farmer whose children live some distance from the school why the children of the rich farmer with whom he works should have free transport because they live further away? I do not think it is possible to explain that. The scheme has become too inflexible and the sadist—he cannot be described in any other way—who decided that three miles was a fair limit must never have lived in the country, must never have started out in the dark in the mornings to walk to school.

I leave home at 8.15 a.m. and I meet these small children in wet weather or in dry weather, walking to school. Of course, a bus comes along afterwards but they cannot be carried in the bus—not because there is no accommodation but because somebody in the Department said: "This is the limit; if you are inside it, you walk." This is a stupid arrangement, and some change in the system should be made.

Last week we had a number of questions down which the Minister attempted to answer fairly. One was in regard to the time schools opened in the winter. We now have European Standard Time and the result is that schools start earlier. A number of schools have not yet got electricity but I am told that some of them start before there is light. The Minister should not have given permission to school managers to change back by one hour. The onus was on the Minister to write to managers and tell them that they must change back by one hour. It may be convenient for some people to have schools starting one hour earlier but it is not convenient for the children to have to walk long distances in the dark. It is bad enough trying to avoid these poor little things on a narrow road in daylight but it is much more difficult in the dark. Would the Minister not try to get some of the safety first associations to supply luminous arm bands or waist bands for school children, so that at least we can see them when we are travelling along in the morning? People who do not have to travel along country roads may wonder what I am talking about, but this is a very serious problem. I am afraid that before the winter is finished numerous small children will have been killed. They run over and back across the road; they run from one side to the other to see something and then start to run back to their friends.

We are doing something about that.

Thank you very much. I have a number of questions down to the Minister today but I will not get the answers in time for this debate. I am not trying to jump the gun but I should like to ask the Minister some questions about the closing of schools. What is the policy in regard to this? Are schools closed because the number of children in them is dropping? Are schools closed because they are in bad condition and there is a better school a short distance away? Are they closed because of a shortage of teachers and it is decided to save on a teacher by closing the school and moving the children to another school? If that is the idea, the Minister will agree with me that it is a bad policy to close a very good school which was erected only a few years ago and move the children to a school which is worse and which will require, because of the influx of the new pupils, the addition of two or three rooms, at a very substantial cost.

This is the sort of thing which has not got the attention which it is entitled to get at Departmental level. It is something which gives rise to very harsh criticism. People in an area may have been asked to contribute a certain amount of money to back up the Department's funds for building a school and then within a short time find the school is closed. But, since the new school is in the same parish, they are asked to dig into their pockets again to pay for another school which is being erected, although the other school is in perfectly good repair and in many cases may be a better school than the one to which they are being transferred.

The other thing about this idea of transferring pupils is that, while the Minister in reply to a question of mine last week said that children in a catchment area would be carried, he did not answer that portion which asked would the children of the future, who would come from that catchment, be carried to the new school. I think the answer is that they would not. The Minister and his Department deal with those children who are attending at the particular time, but those who come afterwards are apparently dealt with in the same way as they would be dealt with if they were going to any other school within the three-mile limit. Now this is something of which the Minister must take cognisance because it is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction.

There has been agitation of different kinds when schools are threatened with closure. I do not agree with school strikes. Getting the children to strike is not the way to deal with the situation. They will have enough of those, God knows, when they reach maturity. Many of the children affected by these school strikes will be involved in strikes of a different kind at a later date and will be forced into the position of rightly going on strike against something they consider unfair. But I do not think there should be school strikes. It is not a good idea. The people who live in an area and who regard the local school as the focal point in the parish are entitled to kick up a big row before they agree to the closing of a school.

I should like the Minister to reconsider the policy operated by school managers who refuse to allow schools to be used as anything except schools. There should be a room in every school in the country in which meetings could be held, meetings of the local football club or the darts club — though they usually require something else along with the darts and a school is not the place in which to get it. I feel rather strongly about this. It is wrong that there should be people who think, apparently, that political Parties should not be allowed to come out in the open and meet at some recognised centre. They can, of course, get some halls — though some halls are barred to political Parties. One is told that meetings cannot be held in these halls because they are under some religious organisation, or something like that. Across the water such places are used extensively for meetings by political Parties. Such meetings are usually well conducted and, when they finish, the hall is left in as good a condition as, if not a better condition than, it was when they went into it. I suggest seriously that the Minister should consider this because it is extremely difficult for a political Party, including his own, to hold a meeting. Political Parties are barred.

The closing of schools is moving too rapidly and the Minister should make some effort to ensure that reasonably good schools are kept open as long as possible. If the schools are in bad condition, that is different. Last year I had a question to the Minister about a school in Meath which had been built and, almost as soon as it was built, it was closed down because teachers could not be found for it. It turned out there were two JAMs in the school and there was a row made by someone who felt the children were entitled to a better education. The manager's decision was to close the school; he said: "If I cannot get a teacher, I cannot get a teacher, and that is that." The situation has improved slightly, but every effort should be made to provide teachers for schools which are in good repair.

The next matter I want to raise is the question of schools in bad repair. There are schools in bad repair throughout my constituency. The figure last year was 55 schools unfit or requiring immediate attention. This problem should be dealt with by the Department. It should not be necessary for any group of parents to meet and decide to refuse to allow their children to go to school until such time as it is put into habitable condition.

It is not right that children in their early formative years should be required to attend what are little more than hovels, hovels very much worse that the houses in which they live or the houses they visit. They should not be required to sit in schools with broken furniture, broken windows and broken floors. In many cases rats and mice run around the classrooms. I know money cannot be found for everything, but a very high priority must be given to the question of replacing schools. Those in bad condition must be dealt with forthwith. There are too many of them. It is all too easy for those who say — I do not agree with them — that our standard of education is the lowest in Europe. It is not anything like the lowest in Europe, but conditions give these people the opportunity of condemning and criticising.

Deputy G. Collins referred to the free school books. I do not think he was quite "on the ball". The issue of school books is a matter for the school principal. I have that on the authority of the Minister. I have accused the Minister of appointing principals as glorified investigation officers. They are required to know the family circumstances of every family whose children require free school books. That is unreasonable. I know that, when I was going to school, if the principal teacher called to my home to know what we had for our meals, or how we lived, or how the house was furnished, in order to decide whether or not I was entitled to free books, I would have resented it very much. I am quite sure the children and the parents of today also resent it. There has been a suggestion that a medical card should qualify a child for free books. Teachers are not perfect.

They are human beings like the rest of us and some of them may comment to their wives or families on matters which may be disclosed to them as a result of these investigations. That is wrong. Another thing that is wrong is the fact that the supply of books is limited. One child may get the books and the next child may not. The priorities are wrong; just as there is no point in trying to improve educational standards with bad schools, there is no point in trying to improve education when there are not sufficient books for the children. This may not be a problem peculiar to us.

I was in Iran some years ago and there every effort was being made to improve educational standards because 90 per cent of the people did not know how to read or write. The system was that army officers were sent out to backward areas for a couple of years to teach in schools. Again, there is the problem of the child who is perhaps not very anxious to learn and who has not got any books. I know that in this year 1968 there are schools in the Republic in which the children, for some reason or other, who should have books have not got them.

It is rather stupid to see a class of 15 or 20 children and two or three with no books. They may not be as bright as the other children or as anxious to learn, but there is no hope for them if they have not got school books. That is something that should be dealt with.

When I was going to school, school books for the year might cost about £1. That was a lot of money then. Recently the mother of a family told me that one of her children who was going to a primary school got a bill for £10 for school books. It is a laugh to talk about free education with this very heavy impost on the mothers and fathers of large families. Deputy Collins referred to the selling of books. Someone is always anxious to buy these books so the question of throwing them away does not arise. Children being children, they will not throw the books on the top of the press or wherever he said. They will sell them and get what they can for them.

It was stated that vocational education and secondary education had been well integrated. I do not think that is true. I should like this to be checked on. There is almost a vendetta in certain areas between the secondary education authorities and the vocational education authorities. There is a resentment of the fact that children who want to go on for an academic career are forced to go to a vocational school, while children who want to go on for a trade, because of the fact that they are in the catchment area of a secondary school have either to go there or stay at home. I notice that the expression used by the Department when dealing with groups of children is a "stream." I have heard of showers. A stream of students is something around 90 pupils. I would suggest that we should not overlook the fact that if vocational education is doing a tremendous job for a certain section of pupils that is not the whole answer and we should still have secondary education available for those who want to pursue an academic career.

The Minister has far more experience and evidence of what is happening than I have. I know what I am told, what I learn travelling around the country and see for myself. It seems to have been decided that, if there are seven streams in a particular area, five will go to the technological schools and two to the vocational school, and therefore the vocational school should be capable of taking 180. That is wrong. The whole idea is wrong. The system has been that, if you want to find out how many children are going to a vocational school, you check on how many enrolled at the start of a term. That is wrong because I know from experience that half way through the term that figure is considerably reduced. It is regrettable, but if the eldest or second eldest child of a poor family who is going to a vocational school is offered a job in a factory he takes it and leaves school. Despite that, they continue to supply that figure to the Department as the attendance at the school for the term.

Last year and the year before we asked the Minister to make some type of subsidy available to poor families who, because they cannot afford to send their children to school, cannot avail of free post-primary education. There are many such families and the cost would be very substantial. We have many large families in the country with the father earning from £10 to £11 a week, and finding it extremely difficult to exist and maintain the family. When the children come to 14 years of age no matter how bright they are or how anxious to continue their education, most of them are looking around for what they call a little job. They take a hole-and-corner job for a short while and eventually they are the people for whom it is difficult to find employment in later life. I suggest that something should be done to try to subsidise poor families to help them to continue the education of their children. That is an investment. If money is invested in that way it is repaid one thousand-fold later on, because of the fact that they are able to take jobs which they otherwise would not be able to take.

The merger of the universities was mentioned on a number of occasions. I do not propose to fish in those troubled waters except to say that one of the complaints we hear very often is that there are too many conflicting statements made by people in authority on the merger. We know the academic staff have views. We also know that the parents of the children going to the university have views. We know that both Churches have views. We know that the children — and most of them are still children — have views.

I was told recently on a television programme that the Minister interviewed many of these people. I made the comment — and it is as true now as it was then — that that was as it should be but that I thought that after interviewing those people it was wrong for the Minister or any other Minister to go out and make statements which entirely contradicted the idea those people had of what was being done. That is wrong. It has happened on several occasions recently. It is an embarrassment not only to the people themselves but to everyone, and particularly to Members of the House who should try to have this matter brought to a reasonable conclusion.

I do not know if the Minister is aware of a problem which students going to Belfield have with regard to the transport system. There are students arriving on trains in the city and making two bus connections but portion of the first lecture in Belfield is over before the students arrive. Since we are talking about free education and free transport, an effort should be made to synchronise the bus service to bring the students out to Belfield in time. It is a considerable distance from the city centre.

We had a group of people outside here last week. I do not believe in that sort of thing. There are other ways of having these matters dealt with. They can be discussed in the Dáil. At the time of the introduction of the free university education scheme the Labour Party made a very strenuous effort to persuade the Minister to introduce what these people were looking for. It does seem terribly unfair that if you got six or seven honours last year you should be told you cannot continue unless you pay your way, but if you get four this year it is all right. I brought to the Minister's notice a number of cases of students who had been attending the university and who because their family circumstances changed had to leave the university and seek employment. Two of the students concerned had seven honours. One of them went to England and one of them went into employment here, to very badly-paid jobs. This was due to the fact that they were unable to pay for further education.

A system has been introduced in the universities that those who fail the first year examination are not allowed to continue until they have passed it; they can try again in the Spring, and so on. I think that is wrong. I know the reason for its introduction is to keep down the numbers because there were over a number of years professional students, and I think we have some of them still, with no ambition other than to be university students. Pupils who leave the secondary school, where there is strict discipline, come to the city and attend the university, where that discipline does not exist and, before they have time to adjust and learn how to use the freedom that they have, on failing the first examination they are out. I think that is wrong. In one university in France there is an arrangement whereby one-third of the students are failed because their marks are not sufficiently high. They do not all have to leave the university, only the very bottom one-third, who display no evidence of a desire to learn. I would suggest to the Minister that he should have another look at this question of first year failures because very many very promising students finish up on the scrapheap of life because they did not pay enough attention in the first year and did not get another chance. The position is more serious now because more students are coming in under the system of free university education and there would not be any hope of such a student getting back to the university.

I have mentioned the question of secondary schools. I am particularly interested in one secondary school. The Minister will forgive me if I refer briefly to a secondary school in Navan, St. Patrick's, which I attended and for that reason am particularly interested in it. That school had a relatively limited number of pupils. It was known as the classical school for a long time. It was restarted in 1930-31 and was run in a limited way until a few years ago. It has now blossomed out. There are more potential pupils than it is possible to handle. If there were accommodation, the attendance would quadruple within 12 months. A site has been bought by the principal of the school. The Bishop of Meath is doing his best to encourage the building of a new school. But it appears that, first, because of the fact that somebody, having gazed at the stars for a while, decided it could accommodate only a two-stream school and that that is all that can be built there and, secondly, that there may be a considerable delay in having the school finished, the number of pupils attending is very limited and they are using makeshift classrooms such as converted stores. I would ask the Minister if he would be so good as to do whatever he can to see to it that there will be a reasonable size school there and that the necessary green light is shown at the earliest possible date.

Finally, I want to thank the Minister for his courtesy in dealing with matters which I brought to his notice during his term of office. I have no complaint whatever about either him or his Department except that I would hope that the Department will employ a few extra typists, in which case they may be able to reply to queries sent to the Department — not to the Minister — more expeditiously.

We in Fine Gael are prepared to give credit where it is due. We believe that great credit is due to the late Donogh O'Malley as Minister for Education. Undoubtedly, he showed great initiative and foresight in his approach to education. It was time that somebody tackled the problem of education as he tackled it a few years ago. It is a well-known fact that all members of his own Party were not behind him in his progressive ideas and progressive ideals and that he had to bulldoze his ideas through his own Party. It is a well-known fact that the first important statements that he made on a scheme to finance education were made without even consulting his own colleagues, that he made the announcement and came back to them and told them that he believed it was in the interests of the country and of the youth of the country and that it was the duty of the Government to provide the money. The Government did provide the money. Great credit is due to the late Deputy O'Malley.

It is quite wrong for Deputy Collins or any other speaker to suggest that Fianna Fáil are responsible for all the advances made in the sphere of education. It is clear to any impartial observer that that claim is false. It was only after the publication of the Fine Gael policy on education — other Parties had also published policies on education — that the late Mr. O'Malley and the Government had the courage to publish a document on education. Unfortunately for the people of this country, it is true to say that during the greater part of Fianna Fáil's term of office they sneered at what they were pleased to call — I quote the words of a former Minister —"the learned element in our society". If they have second thoughts now, they should in all honesty admit that they have been converted to a new way of thinking by Fine Gael and by other progressive elements who for a long number of years were calling on the Government to do something tangible for education.

The fact that there was no real planning is evident today. A scheme was announced in a hurry. Now we find that we have not got enough teachers. In many cases we have not got the buildings. I will deal, perhaps, with that later.

We in Fine Gael have for a long time believed in the right of every child, irrespective of the means of the parents, to make full use of the brains and the gifts that God has given it. We believe in cherishing all of the children of the State equally. We claim that the education of any child should not depend on the ability of the parents to pay for it. We believe that the primary responsibility for the education of a child rests with the parents, that, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has said, the State can supplement but should not supplant. Bureaucrats, in my opinion, are endeavouring to abrogate the rights of parents and public representatives in this country. That is something that we in this House should not stand for. On 8 Lúnasa, 1968, a document was issued to all vocational executive officers in this country in reference to the Government's decision to establish regional technical colleges and to inform them that it was now necessary to arrange for the setting up of a board of management for the colleges at Athlone, Carlow, Dundalk, Letter-kenny, Sligo and Waterford. The letter was signed: Mise le meas, S. O'Neill. The letter continued:

The Department considers that each such board should comprise five members, i.e. one nominee from each of the following bodies:—

Irish Vocational Education Association; Chief Executive Officers' Association; Federated Union of Employers; Irish Congress of Trade Unions; Department of Education.

The nominee of the Department of Education would be Chairman of the Board, and the Principal of the College would act as Secretary.

Now I think that is an arrogant and dictatorial attitude for this Minister or any other Minister to adopt in this country. I want to ask him is there any good reason why the Department of Education should send this letter without consulting anybody and I would like to find out whom they did consult. The 1930 Act empowers the Committee to do this type of work and in regard to this body proposed now by the Minister there is not a word about parents' representatives, there is not a word about representatives of religious orders or others who have done much for the education of the people of this country for many years. There is not a word about the public representatives and members of vocational education committees throughout the length and breadth of the country. This document is unacceptable to us in Westmeath and to the majority or, I think, all the vocational education committees who have considered it so far. Public representatives are being dismissed by a letter written by a civil servant and centralisation now is to be in the hands of civil servants and those appointed by the Minister. We object to that and we think it wrong to encroach on people's rights.

The Minister is responsible for the administration of Education. The Deputy should address his remarks to the Minister.

Yes, Sir, but this letter that was addressed to us is signed by an official.

Issued with the authority of the Minister.

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.

It is gratifying that this Estimate for £49 million shows an increase of £8 million on that of last year. This represents an increase of approximately 17 per cent. No Estimate for any other Department shows or could possibly show such an increase. It is gratifying also to note that a further sum of £3 million is being provided for the building of new national schools, which is quite a sizeable sum for this purpose.

There is an increase of 4,000 children attending primary school compared with the figure for last year. It is a significant increase. It is an indication of an increasing population as well as being a pointer to economic progress.

I welcome the Minister's reference to the abolition of the primary school certificate which has reduced the size of the Estimate for the Department of Education this year by £21,000. In its place, a record card is kept in respect of each pupil in fifth and sixth standard. The record cards are transferred to the principal of the post-primary school to which the children go on leaving the primary school. These record cards are of little value to the secondary school and to the vocational school because the majority of these schools and colleges have their own entrance examination by which they can judge the potential of pupils seeking admission. I do not see any real advantage in these record cards.

On the other hand, I agree very much with the system of asking and getting national school teachers to keep progress cards in respect of children from second class upwards. It is vitally important that parents should be informed, annually at least, of the progress of their children at school. I have many instances of parents who did not know whether their children were being kept back a class or were skipping a class or when they would be ready for post-primary school. These progress cards should be kept up-to-date and the parents should be kept fully informed. Nothing but the highest praise should be given to the national school teachers for their work on these progress cards. I hope that the Minister and his Department will ensure that the parents are kept fully informed about the pupils' progress, annually at least.

Over the last ten years the number of teachers in our national schools has increased by well over 1,000 and we continue to train more teachers than are needed for normal replacements. This enables the staffing position to be improved steadily. Deputy L'Estrange referred to the intake of pupils into national schools and said it was so great that the number of teachers coming from the training colleges was not high enough to cope with the increasing numbers going to primary schools. The Deputy missed the point. As a result of the Government's policy to close the single-teacher and the two-teacher schools it will be possible to reduce the ratio of pupils per teacher in the primary schools.

I welcome the increased provision of £270,000, from £112,000, for school transport services. This system has been criticised by the Opposition mainly because the Government are not able to put the system into operation as fully and as speedily as they would like. Opposition speakers referred to buses conveying primary school teachers to their destinations and having to pass out children attending national schools. Can they not remember the time when there was no free school transport and when this question, therefore, could not have been raised? The Opposition forget that they never gave any degree of priority to education and the proof of that is that prior to 1957-58 less than £16 million was being spent on education, less than one-third of the figure contained in the Estimate we are now discussing.

The Opposition speakers also referred to the closing of one-teacher and two-teacher national schools and the retaining of these schools for sentimental and other reasons, particularly in remote rural areas. We know that the one question to be answered is: which alternative holds the greater advantage for the children? The interest of the children must come before every other interest, before the interest of the teacher, before the interest of the local businessman, or the local shopkeeper who is afraid that a little bit of business might be taken from him if he lives adjacent to the school that is being closed. The Government are right in putting the interests of the children first.

When representations are made to politicians and public representatives they should be honest before they attempt to lead a campaign against the closing of a school. They should make inquiries themselves first to see if the Department and the Minister have a good case for closing the school. If they have, the politicians and the public representatives should return to the local people and have the courage and the honesty to tell the people that they have no case. I have done this on several occasions in south Kerry and I have not come out of it the worse off. On one occasion we were able to put up a case to the late Minister for Education and his officials that a particular three-teacher school should not be closed and our case, which was a good case, was accepted by the Department who agreed that its closing was premature.

I welcome the increase of £110,000 in the Estimate for heating, cleaning and painting of national schools. Many of these schools are in a very bad state of repair because over the years such matters did not get the required priority. I am glad to note that this year's Estimate shows an increase of 50 per cent over the figure for last year. Generally speaking, the school managers are alive to their obligation to initiate improvements in these schools. In Kerry the majority of the managers are concerned about any school which is not properly maintained, which has inadequate heating or sanitary facilities, and in a large number of cases steps are being taken to remedy these defects. The necessary co-operation is forthcoming from the Minister, his Department and the Office of Public Works.

I should also like to refer to the cost of free school textbooks for necessitous children. Opposition speakers criticised the fact that principals and headmasters of schools were asked to operate this scheme. I am glad that the teachers voluntarily agreed to operate this scheme and we should be grateful to them for that. In the interests of efficiency and speed in regard to the examination of applications for free books it is only right that the teachers should determine who should and who should not get these books. The teachers operate this scheme discreetly and in a proper fashion. It would be wrong to ask either the local health authority, the local social welfare officer, or the local assistance officer to investigate the means of the parents of children seeking these books. In many cases the teacher knows without having to make an inquiry, or without asking many questions, who needs these books free of charge and which children do not need them. It is only natural that the teachers should have this information because their area is more limited and more compact, particularly in the rural areas, than the vast area covered by the social welfare officer or a social assistance officer.

We should, indeed, be very grateful to the teachers, both lay and religious, for the manner in which they are operating this scheme. It is good to note that approximately 70,000 children are benefiting from this scheme, which represents about 25 per cent of the enrolment from second to sixth standard, plus a similar percentage in secondary schools. I am glad to note also that the Department are working at the moment on a revised curriculum for national schools and that that revised curriculum is being considered by the various managerial and teaching associations. I hope an agreed revised curriculum will follow in a very short time.

With regard to secondary education, there is an increase in the Estimate of £4 million over and above the figure for last year. Pupil numbers in secondary schools increased by 15,000 in the year 1967-68 as compared with the previous year and the numbers in secondary schools this year will be approximately 133,000 or about 14,000 more than last year. The Minister stated in his opening speech that this increase reflects not only a large influx of new pupils but also a reduction in the rate of drop-out. There is one aspect about this that worries me slightly. If numbers continue to increase and if pupils remain in school for a longer period than heretofore, we may well reach the stage when large numbers will be seeking clerical employment. There would appear to be need for career guidance, therefore, in our schools. I would urge the Minister to take steps to ensure that a situation will not arise in which the vast majority of the children involved in free post-primary education will opt for clerical employment as against other employment.

It is gratifying to note that the total cost of secondary school building will now be financed by the State. This is new. That was not the position up to last year. There will be a grant of 70 per cent from the State and 30 per cent by way of loan repayable over 15 years. This should be an encouragement to religious orders in particular to improve or, if necessary, replace existing school buildings.

An extra £1 million will be spent this year on vocational education. The system of appointment is not all that could be desired. At the moment applicants for permanent appointment, particularly for the post of assistant headmaster, have to go around knocking on the doors of the members of the vocational education committee seeking their votes in order to secure appointment. That is a shocking system. It should be scrapped forthwith. These positions should be filled by the Local Appointments Commission.

I should like the Minister to examine what can be done in regard to the provision of recreational facilities in the vicinity of post-primary schools, particularly vocational schools. During the lunch hour, or while the children are waiting for the classrooms to open in the morning, they have no place to go except to wander on the streets. If I might revert for a moment to transport, the Minister should look into the position in which vocational schools and secondary schools in the same town have different opening hours. In one town the secondary school opens at 9.30 a.m. and the vocational school does not open until 10 a.m. That means that the children attending the vocational school have to hang around for three-quarters of an hour waiting for the vocational school to open. It is vital that there should be uniformity in regard to the opening and closing of these schools in every town to facilitate the children who use free public transport.

I should like the Minister to see what can be done about the provision of hot meals, particularly in post-primary schools. Many of the children attending these schools travel from remote rural areas. They leave home early in the morning and they do not return until around tea time. A hot meal should be provided at mid-day, if that is possible. I know the difficulties that can arise in the initial stages of such a scheme. I do not believe the cost would be as much of an impediment as the organisation of the service. The questions to be answered are: Who will provide the service? Who will purchase the food? Is there to be a charge? I hope not. Who will prepare the meal? Who will dish it up? Who will wash up? Those problems are there, and a solution can and must be found in the interests of children from remote areas who are out from early morning until very late in the afternoon.

I should like to wish the Minister every success and good luck in his proposal for the university merger. I have heard educationists criticising the set up of the Higher Education Authority. These people should know the terms of reference of this authority. It would be advisable to publish those terms of reference. It is felt that the sole purpose of the authority is to implement proposals which have emerged as a result of Government policy and that, in fact, they cannot make any recommendation, that they have no function whatsoever except to put the Government's proposals into operation.

The public should know that it is within the terms of reference of this authority to advise the Minister as to the allocation between the institutions concerned of the funds made available by the Government for higher education purposes, to arrange for the placement of students, to maintain a continual review of the country's needs in higher education, to conduct inquiries and initiate and publish studies on problems of higher education, and to arrange for as much uniformity as possible in the system of grading of university staff. It is important that the public should know that it is within the terms of reference of this authority to endeavour generally to further the development of higher education and to promote a knowledge of its value to the country. It is well worth noting, for the information of the critics of the manner in which this authority was set up, that no person who was invited to serve declined that invitation.

I will conclude by thanking the Minister and his officials and, indeed, all the school managers and teachers I met and discussed problems with during the past year, for the help and co-operation given to me and to the constituency of South Kerry which I represent.

The last speaker mentioned the increase of 50 per cent in the estimate boastfully. I do not think there is anything to boast about if the increases are to be paid out in salaries demanded by teachers which, in turn, have been caused by Government action in increasing the cost of living, if they are to be eaten up by CIE in transporting the children from one end of the country to the other, due to the closing down of schools, and if they are to be eaten up in the building of schools to replace some of the rat hovels we have seen. I do not think we can boast of these things. Let us hope that the end product, the child, will be the better of it, because the vast majority of them will have to continue to emigrate, and let us hope that they will no longer be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water as they have been over the years on the other side of the Irish sea.

School transport creates another problem. The children in the country have to walk miles because of the changing of the schools. The school in the country is not the school around the corner we hear so much about in Dublin and other cities. In the cities the children have light and can see their way, but the unfortunate children in the country have to walk in the pitch dark of the morning. There is a case for an adjustment in the hours. I should like the Minister to have some consideration for the children in the country districts.

I want to refer now to the £10 Irish grant for the children in the Gaeltacht areas. I see families who always spoke the language—some of them knew nothing else—whose children are deprived of this grant. Children in the country are different from children in towns. A child of five or six years of age is easily frightened, and when a cigire comes in and asks a question in an accent which is not the local accent, the child will only stare at him in fear. He will not answer in Irish or in English, and he is struck off simply because he did not answer. I have mentioned this in the House before as something which the Minister should look into.

Let us be men enough in this House to admit that the Irish language drive is a failure. Why is it a failure? Because it is a drive. You can lead an Irishman but you will not drive him. That is why we see parents rising up now and having a vote on whether they want Irish in the schools. Irish language speakers are composed of 75 per cent who got the language with their milk, five per cent who are sincere enthusiasts—and if they were running it we might get somewhere—and 20 per cent of the greatest hypocrites the country ever produced. They seem to be at the helm. They have done more harm to the language than anything else. They are in it for what they can get out of it. They would not like to see the language going ahead. They want to keep the kudos in their own circle. If they are teachers their children will have a good grip of the language but they will also be able to speak English. I hate hypocrisy and I see a lot of it in my own area in this regard.

I know men who spoke no English at all and I heard them cursing at Westland Row because they could go no further than that. They had to be said and led by their co-workers going to England. They were cursing because they could not speak English when they had to go to work in England.

Was that in 1956?

I met them day in and day out on my own forge floor. The men who know the language got it with their milk. They are the men I am speaking about. This should be looked at before the language is hated. There is a hatred of it because of the action of those at the helm. We learned the Irish language at one time merely to spite the British—that is one of the things that happened—and for the love of it but today there has been built up what is not a love, due to the fact that the language has been handed over to this bunch of hypocrites who have no more interest in the national language than they have in Spanish or any other language, who are in the game merely for what is in it.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Top
Share