andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education what average number of children on the school roll is necessary under the Department's rules to justify the employment of three teachers.
108.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Limerick School.
107.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education the average number of children on the roll of Mountpelier school, County Limerick, in each of the last ten years.
109.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education whether the numbers on the roll of Mountpelier school, County Limerick, have justified the employment of a third teacher in accordance with the Department's rules at any time in the past ten years, or earlier, when this justification arose; what steps were taken by the inspectors of his Department to initiate the process of securing the necessary additional accommodation and additional teacher; and why no action was taken in this matter.
With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 107, 708 and 109 together.
On a point of order.
In Question No. 109 there is a misprint which affects the sense and could affect the Minister's reply. There is a semicolon omitted after the word "earlier". I would just draw the Minister's attention to that before he replies. "When this justification arose" is a separate sub-question.
That was obvious.
An average enrolment of 80 pupils for two consecutive quarters is required for the appointment of a third teacher. This figure was arrived at as a result of the gradual reduction which took place from 1948 when the figure was 100. The number of pupils in Mountpelier school in each of the last ten years is being furnished in the form of tabular statement which with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to circulate with the Official Report. Only once during that period did the average enrolment warrant an application being made for a third teacher. That was at the end of the June quarter, 1968. It is a matter for the school manager and not for the inspector to take the initiative in relation to the appointment of teachers. I might add that I am satisfied that the prospective enrolment figures would not have warranted a third teacher in Mountpelier school in the future if the school had been retained.
Following is the statement:
Mountpelier National School, County Limerick
Numbers of Pupils in the School for the Years 1959 to 1969
|
Year |
Number of Pupils |
|
Average enrolment for the calendar year ended 31/12/1959 |
79.9 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 31/12/1960 |
77 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,school year,, 30/6/1961 |
70.3 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 30/6/1962 |
67.2 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 30/6/1963 |
60.2 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 30/6/1964 |
65.5 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 30/6/1965 |
64.7 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 30/6/1966 |
68.7 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 30/6/1967 |
78.7 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 30/6/1968 |
80.9 |
|
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 30/6/1969 |
79.5 |
Could I ask the Minister—there are only ten figures involved—if he would give them to us because it is necessary for us to have them in relation to future questions?
The average enrolment for the calendar year ended 31/12/1959 was 79.9; 1960, 77; 1961, 70.3; 1962, 67.2; 1963, 60.2; 1964, 65.5; 1965, 64.7; 1966, 68.7; 1967, 78.7; 1968, 80.9 and 1969, 79.5.
Could the Minister explain how averages were achieved such as 80.9 in one year and 79.9 in another year and 78.7 in another without there having been at least 80 for two consecutive quarters? This seems arithmetically virtually impossible in view of his other reply that the condition of 80 pupils for two consecutive quarters has never been fulfilled except in one particular period?
Is the Deputy suggesting that the principal teacher in the school sent in false returns?
I am simply accepting the figures the Minister gave and trying to reconcile the answers to two questions. I cannot reconcile his two answers. Am I not right in saying that the Minister said that a condition for a third teacher is to have an average enrolment of 80 pupils for two consecutive quarters?
That is right.
He also said that the average number of pupils in the last three years, over each of the four quarters, has been 78.7, 80.9 and 79.5. This suggests to me—and I am open to correction on it—that there must have been periods of two quarters in each of these years when there must have been 80 pupils. Perhaps, the Minister would read us out the figures for each of the 12 quarters concerned?
I have not got the figures for each of the 12 quarters but I can assure the Deputy that only in the case of 1968 was the average above 80.
In any two quarters.
In any two consecutive quarters in any of the relevant years.
Could I ask the Minister what was the average on the day of the closure?
The last one I have here is 30th June, 1969—79.5.
Is it not a fact that the file on this school is 13 months old and is the Minister aware that despite all this length of time Deputy O'Donnell on no single occasion made one single representation to the Department, to the Minister or to his predecessor?
He was better employed in trying to prevent Councillor Carroll from intimidating these people.
Is the Minister further aware that Deputy FitzGerald, in his official capacity, his role as shadow Minister for Education, should have measured this in great depth, should have looked at the entire position, should have consulted all shades of opinion, should have consulted the parents of the children who have now accepted amalgamation? Had he done so, he would have seen this matter in proper perspective. The position is that the parents of the children who have accepted amalgamation would under no circumstances take their children from Castleconnell school. This is the unfortunate position now.
If I may reply to the final point made by the Deputy, I have not taken any survey of what the people who have accepted amalgamation may think of it but I have no doubt that from our previous experience the people who have now agreed to transfer their children to another school would be just as well satisfied as the people who accepted amalgamation all over the country in the case of various other schools.
I would like to ask the Minister has Deputy FitzGerald made any effort to prove to the Minister that the educational facilities now being made available to the children of this area as a whole are not superior to those which existed prior to amalgamation because, surely, the educational facilities must be his first concern as shadow Minister for Education?
I am only the shadow Minister and cannot, therefore, reply to all these questions on this occasion. I would like to change places for the purpose. I would like to ask the Minister a relevant question. Am I right in understanding him as saying that there was a period in 1968 when for two consecutive quarters there were 80 pupils, that that created justification for a third teacher and that once that justification has been created it can only be lost if the numbers fall below 70 and that they have not since fallen below 70 and that, therefore, justificafor a third teacher remains?
No, that is not correct.
I should like to hear the Minister on that.
When the position was not filled at that stage, and when in subsequent quarters the average fell below the requisite number for appointment, then the appointment cannot be made.
Could the Minister state how the position could have been filled when there is no room in the school to offer a third teacher, the Minister having failed to build the room?
When the Minister examined the whole situation in the area, the whole educational structure, he decided that it would be very much to the advantage of the children of Mountpelier, Bridgetown and Castleconnell that the school in Mountpelier should be closed; that a three-teacher school should be formed in Bridgetown and that the remainer of the children should be sent to a six-teacher school in Castleconnell. What the Minister was concerned with at all times was to provide the best possible facilities for the children in the area.
Can I take it that this rule of 80 pupils can, in fact, be vitiated by the Minister not providing a rule, redistributing the pupils and closing down a school which should be a three-teacher school under his own rule?
That is not the question that was put to me.
It is.
It is not the question.
110.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that sites exist at Mountpelier, County Limerick, both for the extension of the existing school or for the building of a new school; and that a water supply exists nearby to service new sanitary facilities; and what use it is proposed to make of these facilities.
These matters did not arise once it was decide that the educational interests of the children of the entire area would be best served by closing the Mountpelier school and having the pupils accommodated in the schools in Castleconnell and Bridgetown.
111.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education if he will name the schools with 80 or more pupils that have been closed in the past three years; and if he will state in each case how many pupils were on the rolls, how far away the school was to which the pupils were moved and whether the consent of a majority of the parents was secured.
I do not feel that it would be in the public interest that I should in the context of closing one particular school embroil other schools. If, however, the Deputies are endeavouring to suggest that schools with more than 80 pupils have not been amalgamated I can assure them that this is not so.
The question asked was not whether it was simply schools with 80 or more pupils that have been closed but, on the contrary, it went beyond that to raise the question of whether in these cases the schools were near each other or far apart from each other and whether the consent of the majority of the parents was secured. I think we are entitled to an answer to this question. The Minister has not answered it. I would now ask him to do so.
What the Deputy asked me was to name the schools with 80 or more pupils which were amalgamated and I feel that is not in the public interest to do this.
Much as my sympathies lie with the Minister in this matter and much as I think he is reacting perhaps in an overharsh manner to Deputy FitzGerald who, I am quite certain, is utterly objective in this thing, too——
Does the Deputy wish to make a point of order?
——it is without precedent that he should fail to give the names of schools in this country in a formal Parliamentary reply.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I strongly urge that the Minister should name the schools, as the information has been asked for.
I feel that if I were to name all the schools that were closed and amalgamated throughout the country, it would be my duty to give these names but I feel that, to give some names in the context in which this question is asked is a very different matter.
On a further point of order. It is not for the Minister to decide. That is not the particular privilege of the Minister.
The Chair must point out that this is not a point of order. If the Minister says that, in this case, he does not feel himself free to give this kind of an answer, it is not a point of order.
He made a very remarkable statement—not that he does not feel free to give the names but that he will not give them in this context. I can recall no precedent in this House for such a refusal. This question stands in its own right. It is a straightforward question and it is one to which we should have an answer. The fact that it is preceded or followed by quite different questions has nothing to do with it. I would ask the Minister, first of all, not to attempt to create such an unfortunate precedent and, secondly, I would ask him to indicate why his unwillingness to name the schools prevents him from answering the second part of the question which could be answered without naming the schools.
I can answer the the second part of the question.
If the Minister would do so, it would help us to get along.
In fairness, the Minister has our sympathy.
I hope the Deputy accepts that I am being very objective in this, as well as Deputy FitzGerald. I am interested solely in the welfare of the children.
I accept that. We all are.
The majority of the schools were adjacent to one another.
Yes, that is what I thought.
I have no objection to giving that information.
Good, and was the consent of the majority of the parents secured?
I do not think that arose.
Does the Minister mean that there is no other case where the parents objected?
There were, of course, cases where the parents objected. I mentioned that here the last day.
I am speaking of cases of schools of 80 or more pupils. Are there any cases of such schools being closed against the wishes of the parents?
Yes, I can say that.
Would the Minister indicate what cases they were?
That is one of the reasons why I think it is not fair to mention the names of the particular schools here in the context of this question.
Would the Minister give that information to me privately?
(Interruptions.)
I would certainly be interested.
Question No. 112.
The reticent Department.
(Cavan): Surely it is not for the Minister to say what information he will give to this House and what information he will not give in the reply to a Parliamentary question? If that were so, the whole object of the Parliamentary question would be defeated.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Cavan): Unless the Minister can show that it is not in the public interest or that the matter is sub judice, or something like that, I submit, on a point of order, that the Minister must give the information to this House.
This is not a matter of order. The Minister is entitled to say in what form he will give his answer. If the Deputy is not satisfied with it, he is entitled to raise the matter at a later stage.
(Cavan): He said, in effect: “I have the information and I am not prepared to give it.” I say he is not entitled to do that.
Of course I have the information. What I felt here was——
(Cavan): The Minister is obliged to give it.
What I felt here was that, in the context of a particular case which has been raised here and which is in dispute, I should not embroil the other areas in this particular question.
Did the Minister not say last week that this was not the first case?
A Deputy
The Minister is a national teacher. I am amazed at him that the school is closed.
There is no reference to any particular case in Question No. 111.
112.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education when a policy of closing schools with 80 or more pupils, having or being entitled to three teachers, was announced; and what arguments influenced such a policy decision.
Policy is governed by the need to secure larger school units in order to insure that in every locality the best possible education is provided for the pupils. If the fullest benefit is to accrue from a revised curriculum which is entirely child centred and involves the use of visual aids it is essential that the number of standards under any one teacher be kept at the lowest possible level.
This does not seem to me to answer the question. I wanted to know when a policy of closing schools with 80 or more pupils, having or being entitled to three teachers, was announced. It is my understanding that there is a policy, which, I think, has largely been endorsed in this House by both sides, of closing the very small schools which have been shown conclusively to have academic defects. However, it is quite a different matter to be closing schools of three teachers. I want to know when the Government decided that and when they announced that?
Certainly, Deputy, it was originally accepted by all sides but as usual when the Fine Gael Party found themselves in difficulties they did an about turn with regard to this particular matter.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
My point here is that the general policy governs the need to secure larger school units, in order to ensure that in every locality the best possible education is provided for the children.
Where is that policy stated in a form that covers not just one- or two-teacher schools but three-teacher schools or larger? Can the Minister refer me to the relevant document of Government policy?
I have stated here now what the policy is.
Where can I find it?
The Deputy will find it in the Dáil Report in my reply to questions.
I should like to know and I have asked the simple question as to when this policy of closing schools of three or more teachers was announced. I think I am entitled to an answer. Maybe it has not been announced. Maybe it has just happened without any announcement. If so, let us be told that.
As I mentioned in my reply to this question, where schools are closed this is done in order to ensure that we will give the best possible education to the children in the locality.
One- and two-teacher schools are closed for that purpose. We all agree on that.
As I said a moment ago, the Deputy's party was very much in favour of the one- and two-teacher closures until——
Deputy Lindsay is not here now. Deputy FitzGerald is.
Strangely enough, it had nothing to do with Deputy Lindsay.
Individuals may differ about our party policy from time to time. It sometimes happens—even in Fianna Fáil.
113.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education whether the inspector who first consulted the parents at Mountpelier took a vote at that meeting; and what the result of the vote was.
No question of taking a vote at such meetings arises. The inspector's prime task is to explain to the parents the educational benefits which will flow from what is proposed.
Is the Minister not aware that there was, in fact, such a vote, that every hand except two in the hall was raised? Would he appoint inspectors capable of seeing 60, 70 or 80 hands raised?
The inspectors of my Department are excellent educationalists. The inspectors went down and met the parents to discuss this matter of amalgamation with them. I subsequently sent the chief inspector down to explain the reasons why the school was being closed. He did this.