On yesterday's Order Paper I had two questions addressed to the Minister for Education, Questions Nos. 25 and 26. As I was not satisfied with the reply given to Question No. 26 I requested your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to raise the matter on the adjournment and I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise it. To the casual observer it might seem that there is no relationship between the two questions but there is.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate: One-Teacher Schools.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I must ask for the best of order. This is a limited debate and I must ask for order in the House forthwith.
For the record I should like to read out the questions and the answers. In Question No. 25 I asked the Minister for Education if he will sanction the appointment of a second teacher to Moyard national school, County Galway and his answer was :
Before the appointment of a second teacher could be sanctioned, it would be necessary that the school reach an average enrolment of 36 units. This requirement is not fulfilled at present and it appears that the enrolment will decline further.
In Question No. 26 I asked the Minister for Education if he will state his policy in relation to the future of one-teacher schools: and whether this policy will apply uniformly throughout the State.
The reply was:
The educational disadvantages associated with one-teacher schools are so great that I feel that in general such schools should be continued only where satisfactory alternative arrangements for the education of the children concerned cannot be made.
The parents of the children attending Moyard National School in Connemara. County Galway, have been concerned for some time regarding the Department's plans for the future of this school. The second teacher left the school some time ago and, since then, the Department have failed to sanction the appointment of a second teacher to replace the teacher who left. In his reply to Question No. 25 yesterday the Minister confirmed that he would not sanction a second teacher for Moyard national school. In effect, this means that Moyard national school now becomes a one-teacher school. The parents do not want the school closed and a number of them have indicated their views very strongly to me to this effect.
When the previous Government were in office they stated their policy in relation to one-teacher schools very clearly and that policy was adhered to and implemented. If I may say so, it was implemented despite protestations from Fine Gael Deputies, from certain Bishops and from many other people. One of the first actions of the new Government was for the Fine Gael Minister for Education to direct that a one-teacher school which had in fact been closed should be reopened. He even travelled something over 200 miles to perform the opening ceremony himself. There are, I believe, 12 pupils in that school which he reopened in Dún Chaoin.
So far as I am concerned, this is all very fine, I am not complaining; after all, if the Minister for Education is satisfied that a satisfactory education can be given to the children attending that school, why should I be the one to complain? All I am seeking here is clarification of the policy being pursued by the Minister. If the Minister's actions are to be taken as evidence of his policy, it is obvious that he is in favour of keeping one-teacher schools open. Therefore, I assumed that the parents of the children attending Moyard national school in Connemara, County Galway, need have no worries that their school .might be closed.
In order to clarify the position for the parents, I wrote to the Minister about the future of Moyard national school and the Minister very kindly replied. His reply is dated 19th April, 1973, and reads:
A Theachta, a chara,
The Minister for Education, Mr. Richard Burke, TD, has requested me to refer to your representations on behalf of parents of school children attending Moyard NS regarding the question of the future of the school.
The position is that the enrolment figures in Moyard NS do not warrant the appointment of a second teacher nor is there any likelihood that such an appointment will be justified in the future.
It will be appreciated that, since the advent of the new child centred curriculum with its emphasis on developing the capabilities and personality of each pupil individually, no one teacher, however efficient, can be expected successfully to cope with all standards ranging from infants to sixth standard. In addition, such a situation would be most unfair to the children who, when attending Post-Primary schools, would be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis children whose primary education had been obtained in schools where the new curriculum is being operated. For this reason it is felt that small schools should be amalgamated, wherever possible.
You can see that, to my surprise, the threat to the future of this school at Moyard is continued. The only clear statement of policy given in that letter is a condemnation of one-teacher schools and the letter highlights the grave educational disadvantages such pupils would suffer.
I should like to ask the Minister is he telling us that he is condemning the 12 children attending Dún Chaoin to suffer under the handicap of an inadequate education for the rest of their lives. The House will appreciate that there is a shocking contradiction between the action taken by the Minister in Dún Chaoin and what he tells me in the letter I have quoted should apply to the children who attend Moyard national school in Connemara. Worse still, the Minister added further confusion and outright contradiction when in reply to supplementary questions he stated yesterday:
I think the best way of going about all these decisions is to take them individually and——
——listen——
——not to have any set policy on the matter.
I repeat: "not to have any set policy on the matter". Both by word and by action the Minister has shown that he believes there may be some merit in one-teacher schools. To confirm that this is his policy he stated quite baldly again yesterday in reply to supplementary questions that in some instances a one-teacher school might suit the situation.
I want to ask to what situation is he referring? We know from the Departmental surveys carried out that the situation in Dún Chaoin was not educationally suitable and the only conclusion we can come to is that, where sufficient pressure is applied, the Minister will deem the situation educationally suitable. Personally, I am satisfied to leave it to those best qualified to decide on the policy to be followed in these matters. However I would expect that the overriding considerations would always be to ensure the best possible educational opportunity for the children involved.
I accepted the policy laid down in the letter the Minister sent me and I want to know if he intends adhering to that policy or does he now believe there should be no policy, as he said yesterday in reply to questions. One way or the other the people are entitled to honest consistency. At the moment the Minister is making an exhibition of himself and it is not very dignified when a Minister of State makes an exhibition of himself and it is particularly undignified to have our Minister for Education floating like a straw in the wind.
In my view the education of children should not depend on who can give the loudest bark. If in Dún Chaoin, why not in Moyard? If not in Moyard, then why in Dún Chaoin?
Ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar an Aire a bheith macánta leis an dTeach seo, a bheith díreach linn. Ní thig leis an dá thrá a fhreastal.
During my term of office as Minister for Education the overriding consideration in my whole outlook was directed towards the child, towards how best I could achieve his or her educational development, towards what action I should take to ensure the full development of his or her aptitudes and abilities and to making certain that the developments of his or her God given talents would ensure the child's own well-being and that of the community in which the child lived. To this end I introduced the new curriculum into the primary schools, a curriculum which was welcomed by the teaching profession. I shall not go into detail row, but the curriculum was child-centred and to develop it as it should be developed three-teacher schools and upwards were needed. As a result of the policy of amalgamating small schools, thousands of young people now have the advantage of being taught in larger schools in which the new curriculum can be effectively operated.
My policy, as Minister, was to amalgamate small schools as the occasion arose. This did not mean that in each case full individual consideration was not given, as the Minister wrongly stated yesterday, but it did mean that I had a definite policy, a policy which for some time was not a popular policy, but it has been accepted as the proper approach all over the country now and the people are now very interested in the education of their children; they understand what is involved and they accept it, except in isolated instances. The Minister has now no policy in relation to small schools. I was rather surprised to find the headline in this morning's Irish Press reading: “New policy on smaller schools”. This heading resulted from a reply by the Minister yesterday to a supplementary question. The Minister was, in fact, simply making a virtue of necessity. He had reopened a small school which he knows should not have been reopened if he had the educational interests of the children at heart and he now finds himself facing the consequences of his action where other small schools are concerned.
The Minister talked yesterday about examining each case on its merits, the implication being that he would reopen one-teacher schools in certain circumstances. If we are to judge by the Minister's performance, to date, those schools will be retained where the pressure is greatest, and not because of educational considerations. If we are to have an educational policy based on pressure groups, be they political or otherwise, then the outlook for education under the present Government is not secure so far as the parents and the children are concerned. As I said, the Minister said each case would be examined on its merits, no matter how small the school may be. At the same time, in reply to Deputy Molloy, he said:
The educational disadvantages associated with one-teacher schools are so great that I feel that, in general, such schools should be continued only where satisfactory arrangements for the education of the children concerned cannot be made.
In a circular issued by his Department to managers of and teachers in primary schools it is stated that permission is given to a child to obtain free transport even if his home is situated closer to a one-teacher school than the one he attends and this is yet another admission that children attending one-teacher schools are at a very serious educational disadvantage.
Where are we heading then in the educational field? While I was Minister I did not get full agreement from everybody concerned on what I was doing, but nobody was in any doubt as to where he stood.
In reply to a supplementary question by me the Minister made yet another extraordinary statement:
In some instances a one-teacher school might suit the situation as, for example, in respect of the education of the minority in this country.
That certainly was not my policy. I provided special travel facilities for the minority so that they could attend larger schools and avail of the advantages of attendance at these larger schools.
The Minister said yesterday that Dún Chaoin was a special case. He said he had already mentioned a number of times that there was special social and cultural considerations in relation to it. Some time ago I had a question down about Dún Chaoin but I was, unfortunately, unable to be here because of illness when the Minister replied to the question. I intended to ask a number of supplementaries. I shall deal at greater length with this on another occasion. Suffice to say there was something of basic importance involved here, namely, the educational considerations; these children are now, as the Minister himself admits, suffering from the great educational disadvantages associated with one-teacher schools. Those are the Minister's words, not mine.
Sílim go mba cheart don Aire a aire a dhíriú ar leas na bpáistí agus a chinntiú thar rud ar bith eile go bhfaighidh siad Cothram na Féinne i gcúrsaí oideachais.
I should like to advise the Deputy that, due to the length of time it took to have the Division, the Adjournment debate did not commence until some minutes after the appropriate time and I would wish to concede some more time to the Deputy, if he wishes to avail of it.
Thank, you, but I have more or less said what I wanted to say.
I stated in reply to Question No. 26 that I considered the educational disadvantages associated with one-teacher schools so great that, in general, I felt that such schools should be continued only where satisfactory alternative arrangements for the education of the children concerned cannot be made. It will be readily understood that small schools —I am speaking in particular in the present context of one-teacher schools since the discussion, as Deputy Molloy pointed out, has arisen in that connection—are inadequate to provide an adequate standard of education for the pupils in the schools. They are at a disadvantage. One has only to mention the range of the curriculum to be dealt with, the age span of the pupils, the disparity in the pupils' abilities, the development in relation to the school curriculum, et cetera, to indicate the extent of the difficulties involved. The absence of the teacher because of brief temporary illness necessitates the closure of the school and adds to the difficulties. The general experience of managers in relation to the difficulties in the recruitment of teachers for schools in isolated areas has also to be borne in mind and the harmful effect on the standard of achievement of the pupils resulting from a succession of teachers, whether trained or untrained, must be a cause of serious concern. It is in consideration of such general factors that my Department would be anxious to make suitable arrangements for the pupils affected by way of transport to larger school units. I am quite satisfied, however, that the circumstances of each individual case should be fully taken into account and that there should be the fullest consultation between the managers and the parents, on the one hand, and the Department of Education on the other, before a final decision is made in relation to any particular school.
In saying this I would be anxious to avoid any impression being created that such discussions do not already take place and that in very many instances they have been very fruitful. Parents have every reason to be concerned about the standard of education of their children and to be anxious to give the children the best opportunity possible to make their way in a competitive world. The parents are anxious that the children should be educated in comfortable and attractive surroundings, by fully qualified teachers who are fully conversant with the latest developments in educational thought and methods and who find the circumstances conducive to the full deployment of their talents and abilities. All suggestions for amalgamation do not come from the Department. The initiative quite often comes from the parents and the manager of the school and it is the Department who are acting, in such circumstances, in response to local requests.
I should also like to make a distinction between the requirements of the present and the future. It is one thing to continue recognition of a school for a further relatively short period of years, where the immediate local circumstances are favourable to such a course of action, and another to replace an existing premises with a new building which would be expected to last 30 to 40 years and which would be, on any reasonable basis of reckoning, completely out-ofdate or not required for its purpose in perhaps another five or ten years.
This brings me back to the point on which I wish to lay emphasis— that the circumstances of each case must receive due consideration. There are certain small schools to which recognition should be continued since suitable alternative arrangements cannot be made for the pupils attending them. The most obvious examples, as I pointed out yesterday, are small Protestant schools which may be serving, in some cases, a radius of ten to 15 miles. There are also some small Catholic schools—one or two-teacher schools—in rather isolated or remote areas. I am not saying that the circumstances of these schools should not be considered very carefully as the opportunity offers and I would appeal particularly to the parents and to the managers of such schools to approach the issue of the continued recognition of the schools with a sense of very great concern for the educational needs of the children, and a very open mind in relation to the advantages which might be conferred by a suitable system of school transport of the children to a larger school, the greater degree of comfort in travelling to the school for the pupils, the wider range of facilities available in the school and the opportunity for the attainment of higher academic standards.
I recognise that the position of Scoil Ghobnait in Dún Chaoin represents a problem for some of the Deputies opposite but the problem is not of my making. It results from the decision taken to close the school against the wishes and objections of the persons concerned. It is not my intention to indulge in any recrimination in relation to that decision, mistaken and unfortunate though I consider it to have been. I would ask, however, in the interest of the school and so as to afford it a chance to recover and prosper, that my decision to facilitate its reopening should not be made an issue for further political debate. I am quite satisfied that through the efforts of the teacher and with the full support of the earnest parents of the children attending the school, a fully satisfactory standard of academic attainment will be achieved in it.
I may also say that I consider the circumstances of Dún Chaoin to be in many respects unique as I pointed out very clearly on a number of occasions since I made the decision. My decision in relation to it is not of general relevance except to the extent that it illusrates the new approach of the Government to the question of amalgamation of schools—that reorganisation will be pursued through discussion, advice and co-operation, and not through compulsion in disregard of the views and wishes of the parents. It was in line with this approach that I issued a directive to my Department on Monday, 11th June, in connection with the matter raised of the closing of Clydagh national school "that since the manager of the school and the local community wish that the school be retained, no further action should be taken on the part of my Department towards its closure". The policy pursued by the previous administration——
May I ask——
Mr. R. Burke
I did not interrupt the Deputy. The policy pursued by the previous administration——
On a point of information, what is the name of the school mentioned by the Minister?
It is particularly disorderly to interrupt on a motion of this kind where there is a strict time limit.
Mr. R. Burke
——would have been to draw the attention of the manager in unmistakeable terms to the then Government's policy which required that such schools should be closed and leave him no option in the matter. All I am asking Deputies to accept is that decisions should be based on full discussions and that there should be a maximum degree of flexibility of approach consistent with good administrative procedure. I feel there should be no need for me to apologise for such an approach to the matter.
The Dáil adjourned at II p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 14th June, 1973.