Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 1969

Vol. 242 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate: Closure of Mountpelier School.

Dr. FitzGerald

At the outset I hope we can discuss this matter amicably and objectively. In the course of the questions on this subject there have been many exchanges across the House and a certain amount of heat. I bear my share of the blame for this because in trying to get information which the Minister does not always want to give, and in trying to get it against a certain amount of legitimate opposition from the other side, one sometimes gets more heated than one should.

I should like to pay tribute to the Minister in this. He is, I know, doing his best with a difficult problem. He did not create the problem, he inherited it. I am not even convinced the origin of the problem lies with the previous Minister. It might lie outside politics to some degree. I think the Minister will approach this with an open mind; he has claimed he will approach it objectively and I am sure he will. I should like to pay tribute also to Deputy Herbert who has done his best in this matter, although some of his interjections directed at me have suggested that he was not entirely in sympathy with my views.

I should like, first of all, to make clear the policy of the Fine Gael Party and also my own personal policy on the subject of small schools. When the question of small schools came up as a result of the Investment in Education report this party adopted a clear-cut policy and it has adhered to that policy ever since. The Government also adopted a similar policy although it may now appear that they are departing somewhat from it. Our policy was that one-teacher schools ought to go, that the case against them was overwhelming. There might be some rare exceptions such as a school on an island, but subject to these rare exceptions one-teacher schools should go. We also felt that the case made in the Investment in Education report on two-teacher schools was very strong, not as overwhelming, but very strong, and in most cases two-teacher schools should be closed. They should be examined as individual cases and in some cases it would be found—and this was stated in our policy—that the continuance of some such schools could be justified.

The most powerful case of all is where a school is in the process of qualifying to become a three-teacher school. Indeed, the evidence in the Investment in Education report between one- and two-teacher schools on the one hand and three-, four-, five- and six-teacher schools on the other is very clear and very cogent. In table 9 (13) it is made clear that there has been a problem about children in one- and two-teacher schools getting scholarships and that in three-teacher schools the problem is not of the same magnitude at all. In table 9 (17) it is shown that the proportion of three-teacher schools which are old is not alone less than in the case of the smaller schools but less than in the case of the larger schools, 35 against 40 per cent being pre-1900. In table 9 (18) it shows the proportion with drinking water and flush toilets in three-teacher schools is twice the proportion in two-teacher schools. In table 9 (11) it is shown that the cost per pupil place is less in three-teacher schools than in any other size, bigger or smaller. In table 9 (10) it is shown that non-teacher current costs are 2½ times in a one-teacher school what they are in a two-teacher school, whereas as the schools get bigger the difference is not very great. Having examined these figures the Government rightly decided—and the Opposition rightly decided—that one-teacher schools should be closed with the exception of the rare cases I have mentioned of schools on islands, that two-teacher schools should be generally closed, subject to special exceptions, each case being reviewed on its merits, but that there should not be a policy of closing three-teacher schools. No such policy was at any stage announced, no such policy was endorsed by the Opposition, and as far as I am aware, no such policy was endorsed by the Government.

If the Minister wants my own views on the subject they are set out in two articles in the Irish Times on the 23rd and 24th February, 1966. Throughout those articles there was a clear distinction made between one- and two-teacher schools and three-teacher schools. The Minister has made clear the general policy of his Department. He has told us that there were 22 cases to date out of over 600 where three-teacher schools have been closed. He was actually asked how many schools with over 80 pupils have been closed, but he did not answer that question. I should like to know how many schools with more than 85 pupils have been closed. At the time when this school was closed the average attendance in the quarter ended June, 1969 was 85.5, this is the Minister's own figure, and it was on this figure that the decision to close the school was taken.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. FitzGerald

Am I not to be allowed to proceed without interruptions?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dr. FitzGerald.

Dr. FitzGerald

The closure of schools with three or more teachers and over 80 pupils is rare. The Minister said that in one case out of these 22 schools which were closed some opposition was voiced. It is clear, therefore, that the case of Mountpelier is unique in that it is the only place where there has been serious opposition. My party would agree that if there are three-teacher schools and the parents agree, they should be closed and as the Minister has told us, the great majority of cases of closure of three-teacher schools has involved the merger of boys and girls schools side by side, and the parents were whole-heartedly in favour of it. The closure, however, of a school with 85.5 pupils, according to the figure here, is something which runs outside the Government's policy and for that reason we oppose it; it is also contrary to our policy. The Minister said, in reply to a question as to when the Government decided to close three-teacher schools and I quote:

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.

The Fine Gael Party have never proposed the closure of three-teacher schools against the wishes of the parents and neither have the Government. There is some confusion here.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. FitzGerald

I am quite well aware of the position and I will deal now with the question why it should be a three-teacher school.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry the other side of the House do not consider their Minister capable of replying. I am quite sure he is capable of replying. According to the Minister's reply to my Question No. 114 of the 13th November, 1969, the number of pupils increased in this school by 30.1 per cent in the four years ended September, 1969. We have a school with a population expanding at a remarkably rapid rate over this period. The Minister told us that this school was entitled to three teachers, in reply to Question No. 109 of the 30th October, because there was an average enrolment of 80 pupils for two consecutive quarters and that he says is what is required for a third teacher. There seems to be some confusion here as to the interpretation of this because in reply to Question No. 118 of the 13th November the Minister gave the following figures for the following period of two successive quarters. The two quarters ended 30th September, 1967, 80.1; the two quarters ended 30th March, 1968, 80.8; the two quarters ended 30th June, 1968, 81.6; the two quarters ended 30th September, 1968, 80.8. In the following two quarters the average for the two successive quarters fell below 80; in the third quarter after that, ended 30th June, 1969, the average for the two preceding quarters was 81.25 and in the quarter ended 30th September, 1969, the last quarter the school was officially opened, 84.1. For six of the eight last periods of two consecutive quarters, therefore, the average enrolment exceeded 80.

The Minister, interpreting this more narrowly, originally said this was true of one quarter, then amended his reply and when I expressed surprise that he should say in relation to the annual averages he had given that there was only one period of two consecutive quarters of over 80, asked me was I suggesting that the teacher had falsified the rolls. I said I was merely suggesting that statistically his statement was improbable. Next week I was proved right. The Minister came in and very properly stated that he had made a mistake and stated that in two periods of two consecutive quarters this figure had applied.

It seems to me that his interpretation is a narrow one because, as I have stated, both in the two quarters immediately preceding and immediately following, the average of those two quarters is over 80 and my reading of an average enrolment of 80 for two consecutive quarters required is that, if you get two consecutive quarters and average the figures for the two consecutive quarters and get over 80, entitlement is fulfilled. The Minister interprets if differently for reasons that I do not understand and he then omitted any reference to the last period of two quarters ended 30th September, 1969, and he did not give the figure of 81.25 for the two quarters ended 30th June. As I say, for six of the eight last periods of two consecutive quarters, the average for the two quarters was over 80. That is the position as regards this school.

The Minister then said that prospective enrolment figures would not have warranted a third teacher in Mountpelier in the future if the school were retained. I do not understand the relevance of this remark because he has told us that the rule under which the entitlement arises relates to the actual enrolment over two preceding quarters. His view of the prospects at the school is, therefore, not relevant and, in any event, in view of the upward trend of attendances and in view of the number of children under school age—which I shall come back to—I do not think that his opinion is warranted by the facts.

What then of the future of the school? The Minister says that 31 children were born within the area who have not attended school. I pressed him for the meaning of "born within the area". He denied that this excluded children born in a Limerick nursing home and then redefined "born in the area"—a very interesting definition of the word "born"—as meaning all children who were eligible to go to the school from the particular area of that school. Therefore, those are eligible who are eligible. This seems to me an inadequate definition, certainly a new definition of being born. Who are eligible? I understand that all children are eligible under the national school system to attend any national school and it was ruled in the Supreme Court in 1942 or 1943 that the State could not direct them to attend a particular national school. I should like to ask the source of the figure of 31. My understanding is that this figure was arrived at by a survey by a teacher not familiar with the area, asking children at the school to assist him to get the figures. If not, what is the source of the figure and how was the survey carried out?

Mr. Barrett

That is not true.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister can reply. The Minister has told us that he twice verified the figure. How did he verify it? Who counted the children in the area? I can tell him that my information, which I shall submit to him, name for name, address for address, is that there are at the present time 44 children under school age. Of these, almost all—I think 40—are, in fact, aged under five and three or four are just five—a month or so above that. The great majority are under three. I would ask him, therefore, to accept the information I shall submit to him and objectively—because I believe he will treat this objectively—examine it to see whether a mistake has not been made. A mistake can occur. People can make mistakes and, whoever is to blame, it is not the Minister. He was not the Minister when the mistake was made. I would ask him to be prepared to examine the information I have given him.

Other facts about the present position that I should like to put forward are: The parents are in occupation of the school. The teacher who is now teaching is a graduate of Queen's University. We have been told that a number of parents bought tickets for their children —"purchased" was the word, subsequently changed to "got tickets for their children," to go elsewhere. The fact is that the eleven children in respect of whom tickets were bought are now remaining in the school and attending it because there is now a teacher teaching there. So that particular point is no longer valid. We were also told, I think by Deputy Herbert, that none of those who had gone to Castleconnell school would return. In the case of at least six there is a firm statement that if the Minister reverses the position they will return. My personal belief is that others will follow.

A Deputy

Names, please.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will submit the names to the Minister privately. I am certainly not going to name them in this House. There is, I think, a mystery about this as to how this thing came about. Why was the question of replacement raised? This school, which I have seen myself, is in better condition than a very high proportion of national schools in Ireland. We all know in this House the pressure there is to replace schools in the condition they are in. Why was this school brought up for replacement at this stage? Why was it necessary to act precipitately by sending the children on 1st October to the new school where the improved accommodation was not available? The Minister has said the reason was to give the benefit of improved accommodation from the earliest possible date. But, in fact, improved accommodation is not yet available. That does not hold water. Why was there no real consultation with the parents? They were not consulted by the manager. There was no real consultation by the Department. An official went down and spoke to them. Six of the seven people who spoke said they were representatives at the meeting. That was accepted by those present. They spoke against. One spoke for, and he was a county councillor of the Minister's Party. A show of hands showed virtual unanimity against. How could an inspector report back from such a meeting that the parents were in favour of the change, as he appears to have done, or did he do so? Could we be informed what the inspector did report back? What does the Minister mean by saying, "I consulted all the relevant people"—I quote—before making his decision? He did not consult the parents. Are they not relevant? Under our Constitution, they are not only relevant but the only relevant people who have the primary right and duty in respect of educating their children.

We have to accept that this is not just a State problem. The Church is also involved. The managers are the parents' representatives. The Church's teaching is absolutely unqualified on this point. The parents have all the rights. They may delegate them to managers but the managers in that event have the absolute right to act on behalf of the parents and there will be found in no part of any teaching of the Catholic Church anything that deviates from that. Similarly, the State has under the Constitution the absolute obligation to respect parents' rights.

I do not suggest that parents' rights are absolute. Of course, in certain circumstances the community as a whole may decide that parents must send their children to school or must have them educated. We have decided that in this country. If that is applied uniformly and fairly, parents must accept it. The community may decide that all one-teacher schools must be closed and some parents may resist that because they do not know what is best for their children and that decision, applied uniformly and fairly, is one that has to be accepted. It is quite a different matter if particular schools are selected for particular treatment, different from others, particularly a school of this size. In these circumstances, the parents' rights do apply because you cannot pick on some parents and treat them separately and the Constitution will not permit you to do so.

If the State and the Church at any stage join together against the parents to arrange things against their wishes, behind their back, this would be a double betrayal of basic rights. It would discredit the whole system of the primary schools and would raise the question of a total review of the system. The only justification of a system which does not give formal rights to parents is that in practice it ensures these rights prevail. Should it fail to do so, then we have a duty as Christians and as citizens to review it. If this kind of situation occurs we will have to consider our duty from that respect.

I should like to say in conclusion that it is sad that parents in defence of their natural rights should have fallen foul of the law and the editorial in the Evening Herald, under the heading “This is not the way to solve it” makes that point very clear. The last quotation I want to give the House to end on—and I think it is the kind of note I should end on—is from the Irish Independent:

The fact that we see two views in this dispute means something, that there is room for calm discussion and hope for real co-operation. Both sides seem to have taken a hard line. Why not try reasonable discussion?

Minister for Education (Mr. Faulkner)

It is now time, I think, for us to discuss education and educational facilities. When I, as Minister for Education, come to examine the educational facilities to be provided in any area I am guided in my decision, after the fullest consideration, only by what appears to be the best in the interests of the children.

Our policy is that, when a one- or a two-teacher school comes up for replacement or when a teacher, in such a school, retires and it is not likely the average will be maintained, we examine the whole educational structure in the area with a view to providing the best possible facilities for the children in the area. Each case is examined on its merits. When we decide on amalgamation we consult with the manager and, through the manager, with the parents and also with the teachers. On some occasions —when the necessity arises which is rare enough—we send down an inspector to explain to the parents the advantages of the amalgamation and we endeavour to get the greatest possible co-operation between all concerned.

I have on occasion here heard Opposition Deputies comment adversely on the public relations between the Department of Education and the parents. In a relatively short number of years we have closed 614 schools. Of this 614 we have not had any real difficulty except in about a dozen schools. In the light of that experience, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the public relations of the Department of Education should be judged on the basis of the small number in which we have had difficulty while the 600, or so, cases in which we had relatively no trouble at all are ignored.

We, in the Fianna Fáil Party, have provided free education for our children. We have provided it in primary, post-primary and, to a certain extent, in higher education as well. All our activities have been geared to equal educational opportunity for all our children. It must, however, be admitted that there can be no real equality of opportunity unless it begins at the primary school level. Through our amalgamation policy we are providing extra teachers in our primary schools in order to give, as far as possible, equal opportunity to all our children. It would, I think, be very wrong of me, if an opportunity presented itself to help a greater number of children by way of improved facilities, to choose to have undue regard to a smaller number— provided, of course, I was not doing an injustice to anybody.

In the case of Mountpelier, we had a school in particularly bad condition. One of the rooms was too small; sanitation was almost non-existent; the playground was far too small for the number attending the school. It was obvious the school was in line for replacement.

In support of an argument that this could be, or should be, a three-teacher school we have had various figures bandied about. For quite a considerable time now one particular figure— 86—has been tossed around. Of this figure of 86, three were children who came from Limerick and for a short period attended the school, but they were never placed on the roll and have returned to Limerick. One child was enrolled who should never have been enrolled because of a physical defect. Four children, who had come from England, were temporarily enrolled; three of these have now left the locality. The actual figure at the end of September was 79.

I want now to make it clear that this school was not, either on the date of closure, or on the date on which the decision to close it was taken, entitled to be a three-teacher school. Not only that but, even if it had been, it was very obvious from the figures that it would in a very short time have on the roll a number very much below the retention figure. The fact is that 54 children were due to leave that school in the next five years and that there were only 31 children to replace them. This means that, in five years time, there would be only 56 on the roll. There are peak and valley periods in enrolment in practically all rural schools. There is nothing abnormal about this.

Deputy FitzGerald spoke here of the very rapid rise in the number in the school and referred to the high percentage increase between 1965 and 1969. Deputy FitzGerald knows perfectly well that, had he asked me the percentage reduction from 1959 to 1963, he would have had an equally steep decline.

Dr. FitzGerald

No.

Mr. Faulkner

I am merely pointing out that there are peak and valley periods. The peak had been reached and a valley period was setting in once more. Not only that but, in five years time, the number would be lower than it has been for a very long time. I do not accept the figure of 43 given by Deputy FitzGerald. I know that to make up this number—incidentally, it has now become 44——

Dr. FitzGerald

Two children born in the last week.

Mr. Faulkner

——the only way in which it could be done would be by including a number of children coming from families who did not traditionally send their children to Mountpelier. My figure is one I got on three different occasions and it was compiled by people born and reared in the district.

I could not consider Mountpelier in isolation. I had to take into consideration the whole area including Bridgetown and Castleconnell as well as Mountpelier. If children from Killaloe parish attending Mountpelier school went to Bridgetown which is in that parish we would have a viable three-teacher school in Bridgetown; and if the children from Castleconnell parish, who had been attending Mountpelier, went to Castleconnell school, its future as a six-teacher school would be assured. In that case, the children from Mountpelier going to Bridgetown would have a viable three-teacher school, instead of a two-teacher school, and the children going to Castleconnell would have a six-teacher school instead of a two-teacher school. On top of that, we would be giving to the children already in Bridgetown the benefit of a three-teacher school.

Deputy FitzGerald is reported as having attended a meeting in Mountpelier and as having stated there that the people in Mountpelier had a good case. What Deputy FitzGerald would, in fact, succeed in doing would be to condemn the children in Mountpelier and Bridgetown to two-teacher schools for a very, very long time to come.

There has been a great deal of talk about parents' rights. I fully accept that parents have rights but I also believe that children have rights, particularly in relation to education. It is interesting to note that, if some of the children who are living in Mountpelier walked to Bridgetown, they would not be any further away from school than some of the children from a neighbouring parish who attended Mountpelier. Surely it is not suggested that the people in that particular parish have been denied civil rights all down through the years.

When Deputy FitzGerald refers to parents and parents' rights he is referring only to those parents who attended his meetings. What about the parents who sent their children to the schools in Castleconnell and Bridgetown or the parents who have been issued with tickets?

I repeat that there are few Deputies in this House who have as clear an insight into the feeling of people in rural Ireland for their own particular locality as I have. I appreciate and have sympathy with their fear that the closure of their school may lower the status of their area, but the education of their children is far more important than any such feeling and that has been accepted by the majority of the parents in those areas in which schools have been closed.

I appeal again to the parents in Mountpelier to send their children back to school in either Castleconnell or Bridgetown because the educational foundation laid now is of vital importance to their children. No makeshift arrangement can compensate for the loss of a proper education. I appeal to them not to allow themselves to be deluded by those with ulterior motives or duped into thinking that there is anything to be gained by keeping their children from school.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20th November, 1969.