The question of extending the length of the training course for primary teachers was receiving very close attention when I was in office. In January, 1969, the question of the training of primary teachers was referred to the Higher Education Authority. The authority, having considered the request put to them, felt that they should consider the problem of teacher training generally rather than simply confine themselves to the training of primary teachers. The authority made its report on teacher training available to me and suggested that a body to be called An Foras Oideachais should be set up as the authority for teacher education, and outlined the functions of An Foras Oideachais as well as its composition. I note from the Minister's speech that he would prefer another name for this authority. I have no strong feelings in relation to this as long as a body is set up.
The report also proposed that the training course for all primary teachers should be extended for three years and that a restructured course and syllabus of suitable academic and pedagogical content should be pursued which would lead to the award of a primary degree, and that the degree would be called B.Ed. Science. This award would be made by the Council of National Awards, and it was suggested that honours might be awarded in the degree.
It was also suggested that there should be a special, optional post-graduate course leading to a Masters Degree. Among other matters proposed for primary teaching at that time by the Higher Education Authority was that the grants scheme which was available to university students should be introduced for student teachers in the training college, that mature students should be admitted to training, that co-education in colleges of education should be developed and the number of non-residential students expanded.
In relation to the latter matters which I have mentioned I think it should be noted that I did not wait for the setting up of An Foras Oideachais to implement these proposals. I introduced a grants scheme for student teachers which was much on the same lines as the grants for university students. This resulted in more students applying for training. These students might otherwise have gone for university training. This ensured that the very high standard which had always been the hallmark of those entering the training colleges was maintained.
Arrangements were also made for the admission of mature students to the training colleges. I was exceptionally pleased with the calibre of student who applied. A considerable number of mature students were accepted. I would like to emphasise again what I have already said. The acceptance of mature students did not interfere with the intake from the post-primary schools of that particular year because of the exceptionally high numbers accepted for training, which was an all-time record.
Co-education in the colleges of education has been developed to quite an extent by the acceptance of female students in St. Patrick's Training College, Drumcondra, and the acceptance of male students at Mary Immaculate College, Limerick. Co-education had been a feature of the Church of Ireland Training College, Dublin, for many years.
Two other factors must be considered. One is the provision of sufficient accommodation to allow for a three-year course of training, and the other is the type of qualification awarded at the end of such course. I set up a committee to deal with the question of accommodation. The Minister, in reply, to a question from me recently, stated that he had not received any report at that time. The Minister should have had some intimation of the position before he actually announced the date for the commencement of the three-year training course. Perhaps the Minister has the report now. I would have regarded it as a relatively important factor in deciding on the commencement date.
In my view the most important and difficult issue was the question of the qualification to be conferred at the end of the three-year course. The Higher Education Authority have recommended that a B.Ed. Sc. degree should be awarded by the National Council of Educational Awards at the end of the three-year course. I asked for comments from all those closely associated with the colleges of education and from others who are particularly interested in the matter. I found that almost without exception they wanted a university degree. They had many and varied reasons for this. Some people believed that a degree awarded by the National Council of Educational Awards would not have the same status as a degree from a university and that this would tend to look like discrimination against primary teachers and this, in turn, would help to widen the gap between the various teaching bodies. Those commenting were at a disadvantage in that the ad hoc National Council of Educational Awards had not been set up. The calibre of the personnel could not have been appreciated.
Before proceeding further with my own views I will digress for a moment. Many of the arguments put forward with regard to the award of a university degree to students in colleges of education who have completed a three-year course were valid. There is no doubt about that. Some people, however, tend to feel that by denigrating the National Council of Educational Awards generally they would strengthen their own case. This could have very serious consequences. Many people will receive degrees from this council over the years. They can be assured that these degrees will be equal to degrees obtained from any other institution in any particular field. They will be as good as degrees obtained in any institution in the world. Those who recognise the eminence of the members of the ad hoc National Council of Educational Awards will have no doubt on that score. Degrees from the College of Technology in Massachusetts are more highly regarded in the professional world than many university degrees in similar fields.
I have always favoured a university degree for primary teachers. I have never been a person who saw education divided into sections with each section on its own in a tight compartment. I always regarded education as a unit. I believed that if the separate entities were dovetailed into one another the system would be better. As Minister one of my main aims was to bring the various teaching bodies closely together. I recognised that the closer these groups identified with one another the better they would appreciate the other's problems and the better the educational system would be as a result. I believe that we would be getting away from the departmentalisation which for so long had been part of the structure of education here.
I spent much time when I was Minister bringing teachers together. Salary problems had to be overcome. Teaching centres were set up. This all contributed to my purpose. I am convinced that the provision of a university degree to all teachers would go a long way towards the integration of our educational system. Considerable difficulties will have to be overcome. When I left office discussions with the universities were taking place. Universities are autonomous bodies. They decide on the courses they will accept for degree purposes. Many people, speaking from the point of view of universities, felt that degrees should not be awarded automatically to students from the colleges of education on the completion of a three-year course. They favoured the award of a diploma at the end of three years, and felt that a further year's study should then lead to the award of a degree. They held that they found it difficult to see how a degree obtained after three years' study could be equal to a university degree obtained after a four-year course of study. My own view was that with the close liaison between the universities and the colleges of education this problem could be overcome.
I was of the opinion that there was no great reason why universities could not regard the theory and practice and philosophy of education as equating to a couple of subjects for university purposes and that a student taking two other subjects at First Arts should then proceed to a BA degree in three years. I had a feeling that at that time the universities were coming round to seeing this problem in the same light, and I would hope that we will have the happy solution to this that we all desire.
I had intended to bring in the three year course in 1975 because, having considered the whole question in depth, I had come to the conclusion that by that date, with the very large increase in the output in teachers which I had in hand, we would have reached a reasonably favourable pupil-teacher ratio, that we would have been able by then to make the needed provision for special schools and classes for backward children. We could keep the pupil-teacher ratio steady for a number of years, even taking the empty year, as one might term it, into account and we could reduce the pupil-teacher ratio to a proper level. This I felt was a balanced and reasonable programme and one which could keep our standards on the high level to which we have been accustomed. I notice that the Minister intends bringing in the three year training period in 1974. I wish him well in this venture but I should like to point out once again that a very considerable part of the ground work for this three year course was done during my term of office.
Fianna Fáil's efforts to provide comprehensive educational facilities in post-primary education began in the early 1960s leading to a small number of comprehensive schools which would put some of our ideas into practice and would serve as pilot schemes in this field. At the same time, in order to provide comprehensive education elsewhere, efforts were made to break down the barriers between secondary and vocational schools functioning in the same areas and to promote the idea of co-operation between schools. Those efforts met with very little success. I am speaking now about the co-operation between schools. It became apparent in many instances that problems of different forms of management, of separate principal teachers and teaching staffs qualified and recruited on a different basis, were such that the necessary degree of co-operation could not be obtained. The actual location of the individual schools and the human problem of personal relationships and established conditions presented fur ther difficulties in some instances.
Those difficulties with relation to co-operation between schools and the expertise gained from the operation of those comprehensive schools suggested to me that if we were to provide a satisfactory form of broadly based education a system must be devised whereby small schools, secondary and vocational, with their different traditions and structures, could be brought together to serve the educational needs of our young people. In areas where existing small schools were in need of replacement this problem demanded an urgent solution. It was when considering this problem in the light of previous experience that the idea of the community school evolved.
I was very glad to hear Deputy Hogan O'Higgins say that at one time she thought the idea of the community school was not a good one but that now she had come round to accepting that it was. As the idea was developed the necessity to cope with two other growing requirements was also taken into consideration, namely, the provision of greater opportunities and facilities for second chance and adult education and the need in almost every locality for amenities to serve the community generally and particularly to facilitate the activities of local voluntary organisations.
We have long been hearing in this House and elsewhere criticisms of the fact that school buildings, on which large sums of public money have been spent, are left unused and unavailable after 4 o'clock in the afternoon, for months in the summer and for other holiday periods, when they might be used to the great advantage of the local community. We are all aware of the lack of recreational amenities for young people outside school hours and the shortage of physical education facilities generally. One of the functions of the community school building will be to serve the need in the locality in which it is situated. It is hoped that in addition to its more formal educational activity the community school will become the focal point of community development and involvement, which is, of course, a form of education in itself.
The debate on community schools had tended to develop into issues of ownership and management and to ignore the very educational and social needs which those schools are intended to meet. It was unfortunate that in many instances ill-founded criticisms of the proposals were made. I do not categorise all the criticism as being deliberate misrepresentation—very far from it—but much of it was based on misunderstanding and often on an unwillingness even to try to understand, or preconceived unreasoning, opposition to change and development.
The objectives of the community school I have outlined. The managerial and trustee arrangements, worked out over a long period and with much consultation, represent, in my view, a fair balance as between existing interests and, what is more important, give parents a voice in the management of the schools which their children attend. The Deed of Trust for those schools provides the necessary safeguards in relation to religious instruction, worship and practice in accordance with the wishes of the parents of the individual pupil and under the guidance of the appropriate religious authorities. Those guarantees will be there for all denominations in a document which will have the force of law. In all those schools representatives of the religious communities, representatives of the vocational education committees and parents will sit together on boards of management. It is a new type of partnership in Irish education and it will, I am confident, bring great advantages to the individual pupil, to the local community and to the nation. I am very glad to say that the concept has now been accepted by the vast majority of people.
What I have been saying in explanation of the concept of community schools should not be interpreted as an expression of intention to supplement with community schools all the existing secondary and vocational schools. Nothing could be further from the facts. As I explained earlier, my view has been that the proper facilities could be made available in the secondary schools, the vocational schools, the comprehensive schools, or the community schools provided they are large enough to provide the wide range of subjects necessary to develop the aptitudes and abilities of all our pupils.
It was obvious to me and should be clear to anybody interested that, if we are to develop the child to the full, it is necessary to spotlight the particular aptitudes of each child so as to be able to suggest the subjects which should be taken by him which are best suited to him. This was the main reason for the provision of guidance teachers in our post-primary schools, specially trained teachers who will recognise, with the help of other teachers in the school, what line the child should follow to achieve the best development of his abilities. We proceeded to train a number of these teachers. Many are working in our schools at present. Many more are needed. I hope that the Minister will press on with this very necessary and very desirable development.
The size and design of the schools were also matters of very considerable controversy. It must be accepted in this day and age that schools must be sufficiently large, either as individual schools or in a co-operation system between schools in a locality, to be able to provide a range of subjects sufficiently wide to cater for the aptitudes and abilities of all the pupils. A figure of 400 to 800 was mentioned on a number of occasions. While this might be an ideal situation, I pointed out on many occasions that it would not be possible, because of our type of population spread, to have this minimum number available in all areas. I was not inflexible on that matter and I proved that by agreeing to certain areas following a different course, areas which had been marked out originally for community schools.
There was also a certain amount of criticism of the large number of students announced for such areas as Tallaght and Blanchardstown. If anybody takes the time to examine the proposed internal structure of these schools, he will find that the situation is not as formidable as that alleged in the criticisms. In any case, if in the future serious educational problems or difficulties were encountered, there would be little difficulty in creating two schools out of one very large school.
There was a lot of criticism from these benches in relation to the design of the schools when the present Government were in Opposition. I noted recently from a reply given by the Minister to a Deputy that he is very satisfied with the design. Apart from the ordinary education available in community schools and the broad spread of subjects, I had another object in view which I thought was very important. If one looks, for example, at the Tallaght situation, one finds a rapidly expanding built-up area. Here we have people from all walks of life and from many different areas coming to live together in a new area. Their greatest problem is one of identification with the new area, one of trying to become a unit welded together with common interests and common bonds, one of endeavouring to prevent the area from simply becoming an appendage of a very large city: in short, the problem of becoming a community.
I was aware of the many and varied creditable efforts of the people there to form themselves into a community. I felt I could contribute towards that effort by providing a community school which would help not only through providing a wide range of education for their children but also through the school being available within reason to the community as such for its various activities. It would be the focal point for community development. I am particularly pleased, after the very stormy period we had regarding the establishment and development of community schools, that our people generally now recognise their value. I am glad the Minister said that not only are a number of these schools already established but that other areas are earmarked for community schools.
One of the most significant developments under Fianna Fáil was the development of the regional technical colleges. As Minister I felt the need for raising the status of the vocational schools, which prior to that had got the group certificate only. That was a very valuable certificate but, while many were glad to have it, they were not satisfied with the level of education especially after the introduction of free education. The introduction of the intermediate and leaving certificates raised the status of technical schools. My endeavour was to put these schools on a par with the secondary schools in public esteem.
It was clear that, to make real progress and to provide our people with further incentives towards technical and technological education, it was essential that third-level education orientated towards technical education should be made available. To help the regional technical colleges to get off the ground those who had done their intermediate certificate were permitted to enter the regional technical college to do their leaving certificate. I proposed that this concession should last only five years and that the colleges should then be purely third level. I do not know what attitude the Minister will take in relation to that matter. My principal reason for allowing this concession for five years was to help the regional technical colleges to get off the ground. I recognised that it was quite possible that there would be a certain amount of ill-feeling in relation to the other post-primary schools in the area and for that reason I decided at that time that this facility would be available for five years only.
A number of scholarships were made available in the early years but it was clear to me that, if we were to have the desired development in our regional colleges at third level, it was essential that these scholarships should be increased significantly. A committee was set up in the Department of Education to consider the conditions to be laid down in relation to these scholarships. As anybody conversant with the situation is aware this is a very difficult matter. I left office. The scheme has since been announced by the present Minister for Education but I have yet to see any reference made to the fact that this scheme was my scheme and not, as one would think from the Minister's statement, a Coalition Government scheme. I not only had this scheme fully prepared but had got sanction from the Department of Finance for it before I left office.
I should like very briefly to go into the history of the scheme of scholarships to the regional technical colleges. This scheme came into operation in the academic year 1971-72. It was considered that the best way of granting financial assistance to the students attending these colleges was through the scholarship scheme operated by the vocational educational committees. The Department prepared a specimen scheme and the committees were informed that proposals along those lines would be sanctioned. The majority of the committees conformed to the Department's scheme, but seven submitted schemes which were so designed as to exclude pupils from secondary schools. While the scholarship schemes operated by the committees are subject to the sanction of the Minister there is no provision in the legislation which empowers him to impose a scholarship scheme on any committee. In the circumstances, the Department could only advise all committees that it was my desire that the scholarship schemes to regional colleges should be open to all students who obtained the leaving certificate. The committees' schemes were approved and a total of £164,056 was allocated for expenditure on these scholarships in the financial year 1971-72. In the year 1972-73 the allocation for scholarship was increased to £207,699. As a result of the Department's efforts only one committee had confined the scheme to vocational school students.
I decided that the value of the regional college scholarships should be equated to the higher education grants, £250 per annum plus fees for residential students and £100 per annum plus fees for non-residential students. The same means tests were to apply as those which applied to both the higher education grants and the regional college scholarships.
The limited number of scholarships provided by the vocational educational committees was one of the reasons for the continued imbalance at third level between university courses and the technical and technological courses. I decided that there should be a sufficient number of scholarships available to all the committees to widen the scope of the scholarship schemes to include all leaving certificate subjects and offer freedom of choice to all suitable post-primary students to pursue third level courses in the regional colleges, if they so desired. In order to achieve this position I believed that an additional 900 scholarships should be awarded on the results of the 1973 leaving certificate. The estimated cost of these additional scholarships would be £180,000 in a full year and £120,000 in the financial year 1973-74.
The Department of Finance were requested to provide an additional £120,000 for this purpose and not only was this scheme fully prepared but the amount of money made available was for exactly the same amount as the Department of Finance had already guaranteed me before I left office.
To raise the status of technical and technological education I set up the National Council of Educational Awards and the Institute of Higher Education in Limerick. Membership of the National Council of Educational Awards comprises the chairman and 21 ordinary members who include persons holding academic posts in universities, persons with teaching experience and persons having experience in industry and agriculture, commerce, public relations or related fields, and post-primary education. The constitution of the council provides for a full-time director who will also be a member and the general functions assigned to the council were to promote, facilitate, encourage, co-ordinate and develop technical, industrial, commercial, professional and scientific education. They were also empowered to grant and confer degrees, diplomas and certificates to and on students who "shall, to the satisfaction of the council, have pursued at an educational institution recognised by the council courses of study approved by the council and who shall, to the satisfaction of the council, have passed examinations and/or tests set or prescribed by the council" and, secondly, by all other means as may be provided for.
The Minister stated that he proposed to grant university status to the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick. He did not say when he would do this and I would be glad if he would give me some indication as to when he proposes to grant that status. He also stated that he would be guided by the Higher Educational Authority in regard to this matter.
In 1968 the Fianna Fáil Government allocated the capital funds necessary to establish a third level educational institution in Limerick and they asked the Higher Education Authority to recommend how such an institution might be fitted into the existing or future provision for higher education. In their report the Authority stressed that the provision of all forms of higher education must be looked upon as a national problem and that in the assessment of a claim for an additional university, a claim I might add, which Limerick had been pressing vigorously for years, the national needs, including those of the existing university institutions, must first be considered. The authority expressed the view that there was no need for another university and went on to state that
.... while it was cleary impracticable to consider the establishment of a university in every major centre of population, this country is to a great extent lacking in a new and increasingly important form of higher education of which the primary purpose is the application of scientific knowledge and method.
The authority, therefore, recommended that a college of higher education be established in Limerick and that its work be based primarily on a technological foundation, with a significant element of the humanities, and that the college should cater for certificates, diplomas, degrees or degree courses. Programmes of study to both diploma and degree level were planned and undertaken in five areas in applied science, business studies, electronics, European studies and secretarial sciences. Europe was adopted as the academic theme of the institute and all the programmes were designed to provide students with the educational training likely to be of benefit within a country adjusting to a reorganising Europe.
Reverting to the Minister's statement that he proposes to give university status to Limerick and assuming, as I said before, that he will be guided by the Higher Education Authority, may I ask him if that authority have informed him of any change of attitude on their part to the Limerick institute from that which they made available to me and to which I have referred? If the Higher Education Authority continue to hold the view they expressed to me, has the Minister made his own decision and does he propose now simply to ask the Higher Education Authority to investigate how this decision can be implemented?
I am not suggesting for one moment that the Minister is not entitled to ignore the views of the Higher Education Authority or that he is not entitled to follow the procedure I mentioned, but I would like to know if he proposes to ignore this advice and, if so, for what reason. I would be the first to agree that if the Minister were to study in depth all the implications of the move he proposes to make and if, having considered the views of all the interested parties, including the Higher Education Authority, he then decides that the institute of higher education should be a university, not only would he be entitled to name the institute a university but he would be obliged to do so. However, I am not at all satisfied that the Minister has done this; neither do I believe from my own experience that it would be possible for him to have made the study in depth necessary before such a decision could properly be made. To me, the move would appear to be a purely political one, designed to catch the headlines, popular in an emotional sense, but not necessarily beneficial to education or to the country. I can understand the desire of those in charge of the institute and of some people in Limerick to have an institute of university status. This desire stems from the unfortunate academic bias prevailing in our educational system, but decisions cannot be based on our own desires, however popular they may happen to be, but must rather be based on the good of the educational system looking at it from a purely national point of view.
I noted that the Minister was a bit ambiguous about the future because he did not mention a university at all but went on to point out that, while some people wanted this particular status given to the institute, nevertheless, having had experience of the workings of the institute, he found it was working exceptionally well. When I was in office I gave this matter very deep thought and, having examined the pros and cons, I came to the conclusion that we should give the institute a chance to develop within the framework laid down and, if it were shown subsequently that it would be better to have an institute with university status, then, having studied this development and examined the whole situation, there would be no reason why it should not be given university status. I believed we have here an institute of higher education with an opportunity to develop in its own way without the restraints with which it would inevitably be surrounded if it were to be called a university. Here was an institute dealing with education at its highest level which could examine the whole educational scene, decide on priorities and play its part to the full in the particular fields decided on by itself just as universities play their part in their own particular fields.
As I said earlier, degrees from institutes such as this are held in very high esteem, as high esteem as university degrees and, in some instances, they are regarded as better than university degrees. Nevertheless, if the Minister feels, having examined the whole situation, and relating it to national aims, that the institute should be given university status, good luck to him.
There were matters I considered of very great importance during my term of office. The contributions made by me to educational developments I would list as the implementation of the new curriculum, the development of comprehensive education, the introduction of the intermediate and leaving certificates to vocational schools, the setting up of the psychological centre in the Department, the community schools and, above all, the solving of the very delicate problem of teacher relationships between the various groups of teachers. I had hoped to continue the ideas on which the new curriculum for primary schools was based into the post-primary schools in the earlier years. The problem which arose was that, because of the setting of examinations for primary pupils wishing to enter post-primary schools, those who most faithfully followed on the lines of the new curriculum found themselves at a disadvantage because the examinations were based on the old methods. This could have had tragic consequences because it was bound to bring in social pressures on teachers to teach in accordance with the methods best suited to the examinations and the very worthwhile system which enabled the child to learn how to learn instead of having his mind filled with so-called facts could rapidly disappear. The whole question of examinations for entry into post-primary schools was under examination in the Department when I left and had been under examination there for a considerable part of the time I spent in the Department.
I have already dealt with the reasons for introducing the intermediate and leaving certificate examinations into vocational schools and the reasons for comprehensive education. Consequently, I do not think there is any reason for me to speak further on these matters.
However, I should like to refer to the teachers' dispute which was responsible for some stormy periods in my early days as Minister. It was obvious that if we were to be in a position to make comprehensive education available to all the children it was necessary that all our teachers should be treated equally, bearing in mind qualifications. Otherwise it would not be possible to ask teachers to spend part of their time teaching in a different type of school from their own. This, of course, was only part of the problem.
I mention the matter now to express to the three groups of teachers with whom I was dealing my deep appreciation of their forebearance in very difficult times and of the manner in which they came to understand and respect one another's viewpoint, and mine, and for the way they always kept the discussions and arguments above the personal level. I realised then, as I do now, how difficult a problem each and every one of the executives had in endeavouring to solve what at that time appeared insoluble.
We have come a long way from the day when teachers in the varying groups hardly recognised one another. I noted with some satisfaction in recent times where two groups were considering uniting and forming one union. I was pleased a short time before I left the Department to be invited to a dinner which was run by the three organisations jointly. I feel that the teacher-centres helped in this respect also. Who could have visualised such an invitation being issued to me three years earlier?
Another matter to which I should like to refer is the fact that I had to break an agreement. I believe it was necessary that I should do so but I can assure the teaching bodies now that it was one of the most difficult things I had ever to do in my life because it ran completely contrary to my nature.
To set the record straight I feel I must comment briefly on statements made by the Minister since he assumed office in relation to what appeared to be accepted as new ideas and new plans but which, in many instances, had either reached a state of maturity or had been under scrutiny for a considerable time before I left office. I have never been one to complain and I do not want to appear to be doing that now. Although I was pressed on many occasions by friends and supporters to issue statements in reply to those of the Minister I preferred to wait until I had the opportunity of speaking on this Estimate.
I was disappointed that the Minister did not emulate some of his colleagues who, when introducing something which appeared to be new, pointed out that it had been the work of a previous Minister. I am aware that only the uninitiated were fooled by many of the statements of this Minister and that those involved in education recognise that one cannot come up within the course of a few weeks with fully prepared new schemes. Such people are aware that it takes long, tedious and arduous work to produce any worthwhile and enduring scheme. I will deal with his statements, and the actions of the Minister, in the order in which they came as far as I can remember them.
The first was the re-opening of the school in Dún Chaoin. That certainly was the Minister's own decision. I am convinced that educationally to reopen the school was unsound and that neither the social nor cultural structures of the area would have been affected by the amalgamation which I had proposed. Most certainly the educational aspect of it was seriously detrimental.
The change in the Irish language policy which I have already dealt with to some extent in Irish I will deal with later. I have already referred to the big increase in the number of scholarships to students to regional technical colleges. That was entirely my scheme It was ready for implementation even to the point where financial provision had been made and it was in complete conformity with my policy of adjusting the imbalance in education.
The fact that the plan to have a community school in Lucan was dropped was also my decision. In dealing with the three-year training course earlier I pointed out that practically all of the spade work was done in relation to that matter when I left office. The cutting of the pupil-teacher ratio in some of the larger schools, as I have already pointed out, could not have been done without the foresight shown in increasing the number of teachers in training very considerably. This I did.
The question of setting up an independent examination board which got immense publicity from the media had been on the stocks for a long time and is nothing new. A considerable amount of work had been done in relation to this before I left office. I have in my possession a copy of a report of the departmental committee on the setting up of an independent examination board. This committee were set up by me in 1970 and their report had been presented to me some time before I left office. I must say that this committee carried out their work in a very thorough fashion.
Joint discussions were set in train by me between representatives of the universities and this was a prelude to discussions with managerial associations and the teacher organisations. I am sure that everybody will acknowledge that considerable progress was made in regard to this particular matter during my time in office. In fact, much of the ground work was done before the Coalition went into office. However, like many of the other things, it was termed to be something wonderful and something new coming from the new Government and the new Minister.
In relation to the note on the benefits of setting up an examination board one of the points made was that it would release inspectors for school inspection and advisory work. This is also something that the Minister referred to. I can say that not one of the matters announced, with the exception of the re-opening of the school in Dún Chaoin which can hardly be regarded as a matter of earth-shaking significance, was in any sense new or even moderately new. As the Minister said in the course of an interview recently: "The media have been kind to me". That at least is true.
I would now like to supplement the remarks I made in Irish in relation to the Irish language policy. While still Minister for Education and not after the change over I said I would have liked to have removed Irish as a failing subject in the leaving certificate if I could have been certain that every Irish child would have the opportunity of being taught Irish to the extent that he could use the language where and when he so wished in after life. I had discussions with various groups and individuals but I failed to come up with an answer which would reasonably satisfy me.
Comhairle na Gaeilge were asked to consider the matter by me after my statement on television, a statement in which I referred to the abolition of Irish as a failing subject in the leaving certificate. Conradh na Gaeilge asked to come to see me so that they could find out what I had in mind. I pointed out to them that there was always the danger that a Coalition Government would come into office and that they would immediately abolish the compulsory stipulation in relation to the leaving certificate without any consideration of the consequences. I asked them to help me to find some way in which we could have a worth while substitute which would ensure that every child would be taught the language and would have an opportunity of speaking it so that, having done the groundwork, we could abolish the compulsory element in the leaving certificate. I must add I never saw them again.
Deputy Colley established a scientific research group to examine our people's attitude towards the language and the methods being used in its revival. When I would have studied the reports and considered the various views of groups and individuals, I had hoped in about a year and a half to introduce a policy that would ensure that I preserved the right of each child to learn the language properly. That was not to be. The new Minister changed the policy overnight and the result of his action will not be known for some time. As I pointed out earlier in Irish, I have always been a very strong advocate of the revival of the national language and, because of this, I wish the new policy every success.
The opening of Dún Chaoin was obviously a sop. Perhaps it was not as good a sop as the Minister thought because for some of those who had done little or nothing for the language but who had pretended to be very concerned the closing of Dún Chaoin was a heaven-sent blessing and gave them the battle-cry they needed badly to cover their own deficiencies. The Minister spoiled this for them.
Let us consider the so-called compulsory Irish system. If the Minister looks up the records he will find that in 1972 out of a total of 28,000 students who took the leaving certificate examination 75 failed because of failure in Irish only. Therefore, from a purely practical point of view, the rate of failure in the examination because of failure in Irish was insignificant—it was between .2 and .3 of 1 per cent. However, for political purposes for many years Fine Gael raised the issue to the status of a bogey man and the result was people no longer concerned themselves with the facts. Emotionalism took over, and every parent feared that his child might fail the examination because of failure in Irish. The facts show this was almost impossible.
Precisely because Irish was a failing subject in the leaving certificate, I often wondered how many might have passed the examination because of that fact. However, I shall not go into that matter in detail. I recognised even though only 75 children had failed out of a total of 28,000 because of failing Irish only, nevertheless this was a human problem. There was a psychological aspect to the matter and I believed we should get rid of it. I am not saying this now after the event; I stated it on television to the country a considerable time prior to leaving office. However, because I believed in the need to preserve our language, I believed it was necessary to have a worthwhile alternative. I do not think the Minister has given us a worthwhile alternative.
Perhaps we might examine what the Minister did and consider its effectiveness. His first pronouncement was that an honours in Irish would equal two honours and that it would be compulsory to teach a course of Irish in all schools relying for finances on the State. This was immediately hailed as progress by Conradh na Gaeilge, Gael Linn and others in the language movement. They did not even use the time-honoured phrase: "we must wait until we have considered the Minister's proposals". This underlines the dangers of making pronouncements on an emotional basis which have no direct bearing on the subject matter involved. Without going into any detail, we know neither of these bodies loved us at that time—I would add this had nothing to do with Irish language policy. The LFM went into ecstasies —of course, this could be expected. The two groups opposed to each other suddenly seemed to agree and, to put it mildly, this might be regarded as rather peculiar.
Sometime later on a television programme, I pointed out that giving two honours for Irish would create an élitist situation, where a few students who were good at languages would be taught Irish for the sole purpose of getting the grant while the remainder might not be taught Irish despite the fact that it was on the curriculum. Perhaps I was being kind when I used the words "might not". When the Minister was interviewed he stated he would introduce changes to allow the post-primary inspectors to do the work in schools they were intended to do. He was asked if they would be used to ensure that the Irish programme was being taught in schools and he quickly said this would not be so. How then was he to ensure that Irish is taught to those who will not choose it as an examination subject? Both the Minister and myself are teachers; neither of us is anybody's fool when it comes to knowing what happens to non-examination subjects when examination pressures are on. I hope nobody will suggest I am questioning the honour of the teaching body. It might be useful if somebody had a chat with them individually and see what they might say.
Shortly after the television programme the Minister made an addition to the policy and he stated that a pass in the Irish paper was equal to two passes. It would be worth the Minister's while to ask any teacher what he thinks of this proposal from the point of view of education. All of the teachers are shocked. When I was Minister for Education, although it might have been taken as a criticism of myself or my Department, I said constantly that thousands of our children were coming out of school with leaving certificates not worth the paper they were written on but at least they had four subjects on the certificates as well as Irish.
Now they will have three subjects as well as Irish. This can be frightening, because we can visualise the position of a child with a leaving certificate pass in Irish, English, History and Geography. He can claim to have been successful in the leaving certificate but will consider himself cheated later on finding out what value this certificate is likely to be to him. This is a travesty of education and does nothing for the Irish language revival except perhaps to make cynics more cynical. Perhaps I would accept a pass in Irish as being equal to two passes provided that the other subjects were of a technical nature, because we know that a pass leaving certificate in academic subjects is of little value, whereas a leaving certificate subject, even on pass level, relating to technical education can be very valuable.
I would emphasise once again that I am in agreement with the Minister in relation to the removal of Irish as a compulsory subject. I am not saying that only after the event because I had said it before. However, I am not happy regarding the manner in which it was done. I am not sure that it will help to develop the language in the years ahead; but being a very strong advocate of the restoration of the language, I wish the Minister every success with his policy.
Some years ago, when free education seemed to be something which might come about in the distant future, it might have appeared to all those concerned with the possibility of free education that its achievement, together with free school transport, would solve all our educational problems. But it was only when these facilities became available that it was realised that equality of educational opportunities meant much more than free schooling. We had children of differing social backgrounds coming together in the educational system for the first time and it was essential to ascertain the differing aptitudes and abilities of these children. It was realised that it was necessary to endeavour to overcome the various obstacles that arose in relation to the development of these aptitudes and abilities. We had to ensure that a wide range of subjects was provided and we had to provide the necessary psychological and guidance services so that a child would take the subjects which would be best suited to his development.
It was necessary for us also to endeavour to educate parents into an appreciation that white-collar jobs were not the ultimate. It took long and patient discussion and explanation to have accepted generally what we were aiming at. But we succeeded and the result of that success is now beginning to bear fruit. For example, we have succeeded by way of our community schools in ensuring not only that the children of rural Ireland will be catered for as well as those in the city but also that our older people will now have the opportunity of furthering their own education which they may have had to forego because of circumstances.
Another problem that faced us after the introduction of free education was that of dealing with the backward pupil. In order to overcome this difficulty remedial teaching at all levels was introduced in the primary and post-primary schools. Special courses of training for remedial teachers were set in train so as to ensure that the fullest benefits might be derived by each student. Guidance and remedial services were introduced and expanded by me and with the greater variety and scope of courses now available the development of pupil-teacher guidance services seems of very much greater importance.
The psychological division within the Department of Education was developing steadily a pupil-guidance service in post-primary schools. It was not possible to produce overnight a corps of teachers with the special training required for this work but the steps taken by me in regard to specialised in-service courses was improving the situation rapidly. Similarly, in the field of remedial teaching training facilities were provided for selected teachers who showed a special aptitude for work of this kind. It is only in schools with large enrolments and suitably wide curricula that the guidance and remedial services can be operated to the fullest extent.
I shall not go into any detail on the education of handicapped children except to say that this is one of the aspects of education in which I have a particular interest. The development of this type of education is something that we can be proud of and I take this opportunity of complimenting the very dedicated people in the Department who are involved in it. When one is dealing with handicapped children it is not possible to divorce oneself from the problem because one becomes involved completely in it. The people in the Department who are concerned with this aspect of education are involved to such an extent that they can tell very often that a child is not receiving the education he should be receiving and they do everything possible to remedy the situation.
We developed, too, the educational system for those handicapped physically, for the mildly mentally handicapped, for the moderately mentally handicapped, for the emotionally disturbed, for educationally retarded children and for itinerants. This system is regarded now as being one of the best in Europe and the Department deserve great credit for what has been achieved.
Regarding physical education, the Fianna Fáil Government recognised the importance to the community of this aspect of education. In 1969 there occurred two events which gave an impetus to youth, sport and physical education and recreation when in the budget for that year grants totalling £100,000 for this purpose were announced. The following July a Parliamentary Secretary was appointed to the Minister for Education and he was given responsibility for the development of physical education and sport generally. A number of developments flowed from these decisions during my time in office. Scholarships were made available to male physical education students so as to enable them to study in England. A National College of Physical Education reached the planning stage and in-service courses in physical education were put in train for teachers in primary and post-primary schools. Physical education equipment was supplied for the first time to new national schools and the appointments of four extra physical education inspectors were sanctioned.
On the sports and recreation side grants to governing bodies of sport were awarded. Coaching courses organised by various sports organisations were financed and this resulted in a large increase in clubs and club membership. COSAC were established to advise the Parliamentary Secretary. Regional recreational committees were appointed. An exhibition, conference and fitness week was organised in 1972. Extensive sports facilities were provided in connection with the community schools and greatly increased grants were awarded to governing bodies. The National Youth Council was enabled to employ full-time staff to act as a channel for recommendations in regard to the development of youth activities.
In relation to the National College of Physical Education, the proposed site adjacent to Mary Immaculate Training College was found to be less than adequate and 51 acres were acquired at Plessey attached to the land which already had been acquired for the Institute of Higher Education, and now the total site is being developed as a unit. January, 1973, was fixed as the date for the opening of the first phase of the National College of Physical Education. This was postponed due to weather problems and facilities were made available elsewhere.
In my view, the provision of physical education facilities in the community schools will greatly help the employment of physical education teachers, and the emergence of sports centres will obviously present openings for recreation managers. I was having considered the question of injecting management studies, with special reference to recreation, into the National College of Physical Education courses. I hope this will be proceeded with. We also had a scheme for providing physical education equipment in general purpose rooms being added to national schools or being provided in new national schools.
We had laid a well-structured foundation for the development of physical education and sports activities. I hope the Government will continue the good work which is bringing and will continue to bring worthwhile benefits to the youth of Ireland.
With regard to the re-organisation of higher education in Ireland I set up a committee in November, 1972. The function of this committee was to discuss generally the recommendations contained in the higher education reports and to try to arrive at some broad conclusions, particularly in the areas of engineering and medicine. The committee was also required to look at the responses of the universities and other bodies to this report and to include in its ambit the Ballymun project and the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. St. Patrick's College in Maynooth was also involved. The date for the receipt of responses was fixed for 30th November, 1972, but at the request of various bodies this was extended to the end of January, 1973. Before I left office responses had been received from practically all the major interests with the exception of the Department of Health. I understood that the Department of Health was preparing a lengthy document referring particularly to hospitals. Perhaps the Minister would let me know if that has now been received. The committee had a number of meetings. They also discussed the matter with representatives of OECD and with others who were commissioned to furnish a report in regard to engineering and architectural education. In his speech the Minister mentioned a few matters to which I would like to refer. On page 2 he said:
A particularly pleasing aspect of the increased participation is that it is taking place in second level and third level courses in the colleges of technology and the regional colleges.
I would hope that this will continue, and, as I pointed out before, I have been advocating for years the need for the development of our technical education. I would feel that the change he has noted and that I noted before I left the Department was in response to the various speeches I made pointing out the need for the change from the academic to the technical side. Early in his speech, he said:
Under the heading of "Education", the National Coalition in February last in its published statement of intent, set out three main objectives: firstly, to introduce genuine consultation with parents, school authorities, teachers and students;
Again I want to say that this was carried out during my time, and I want to refute any suggestions that have been made that it was not. He goes on to say:
secondly, to transfer to an independent educational body authority for examinations and courses.
We were well on the way to achieving this when I left office. He then goes on to talk about the policy for the Irish language as being disastrous. I refute that entirely. He also speaks about the new system of programme budgeting operated in the Department of Education. This programme budgeting was in operation for quite a considerable time before I left. In relation to the Office of the Minister for Education he refers to the principal items responsible for the increased money being voted this year, for example: "Student grants for higher education which show an increase of £469,500." I should like to know from the Minister if this is the money which was made available due to the increase in the grants made during my term of office as Minister. Perhaps he would inform me if he has since further increased the level of the grants.
The Minister mentions that there is an extra £40,000 being provided for youth and sports organisations. This is by no means sufficient. When we started off this whole project in relation to youth and sports organisations, the amount allocated was £100,000. This was allocated for the purpose of getting it off the ground, and I would have anticipated a more rapid increase in the development once it had been started.
The Minister mentioned the number of students who are availing of free transport. He pointed out that he is endeavouring to reduce costs. I have no objection to that provided that it does not mean that some young people who are at present getting free transport will be denied it in future in order to reduce costs.
The fares in the city have gone up very considerably since the present Government came into office. When I was Minister I impressed on the Government the need to keep the fares of school pupils as low as possible.
I congratulate the Minister on making moneys available to those in residential schools for the blind and the deaf, and for those in special schools for the mentally handicapped. I am speaking of the money available to these children for making regular visits home. This is a welcome addition to the facilities available before the present Minister came into office.
I have referred to most of the matters mentioned by the Minister. I have also put my own case. The Minister referred to the position in the National Museum and the National Library. He pointed out that there were problems to be tackled in respect of accommodation. These problems were being tackled before the Minister came into office. I accept that I did not do as much as I might have done in relation to these particular problems.
The moneys available for free books to children of disadvantaged families have increased. It is necessary to increase them considerably because books are very dear and the VAT on books has been increased.
The Minister said:
Within a short time of my assuming office I announced a significant reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio to take effect from the commencement of the current school year, that is, from 1st July, 1973.
I want to point out that that was made possible by the fact that I increased the numbers in training very considerably during my term of office. I do not need to refer to the Van Leer Foundation project which is in operation in Rutland Street. Because of its exceptional value this project will make available much-needed information in that particular aspect of educational development.
The Minister referred also to reformatory and industrial schools, which are now known as special schools and residential homes. I wish to point out that the school at Finglas was in operation during my time in office. The new remand home and assessment unit was in the course of being provided. The senior school for young offenders at Oberstown was started during my time. The decision to have group home units in residential homes, and the building of some of those, was also taken during my time.
One of the things I object to is the manner in which statements are made to give the impression that certain things happened during the term of office of the Coalition Government when such things really happened during my time. I will quote from the Minister's speech what was said under the heading "Pupil Guidance":
In their schools, guidance teachers spend most of their time on pupil guidance work with individuals and groups of pupils, and to ensure that they are free to do this, in schools with over 250 pupils, the post of Guidance Teacher is a post outside the normal quota of trading posts for the school.
When the Minister spoke about the post of guidance teacher being outside the normal quota of teaching posts an impression was given that all this happened during the Minister's term of office. This was decided on while I was in office.
The Minister spoke about the pressure of examinations. I agree fully with him on this point. One of the things which creates anxiety on the part of young people is the fact that when examination results come out children are very fearful of meeting somebody who would ask not whether he passed but how many honours he got. I do not know what can be done about that. People are free to ask any questions they like. They should realise the immense pressures they put on young people by asking them this type of question, particularly if the young people feel they have not done as well as they might. If people realised the pressures which result from such questions they would refrain from asking them.
I do not think I need go into the question of the building of schools. We did a considerable amount of this during my term of office. The Minister will agree that shortly after coming into office he spent a considerable amount of his time opening the schools I had been responsible for.
I have spoken at some length on this Estimate. I have done so because whether in power or out of power I am deeply interested in the development of our educational system so that our young people can develop their God-given aptitudes and abilities to the greatest possible extent and in that way succeed in living happier and more contented lives.
I agree that I was under fairly constant pressure while I was in the Department. This was mainly due to my standing firm on decisions which, after much consultation and consideration, I believed to be in the best interests of the children of Ireland, however temporarily unpopular those decisions might be. There were undoubtedly those who did not agree with me but I think I can truthfully say that there were very few who did not know where they stood with me. I believe that what I did for education will speak for me. This has always been my attitude. Perhaps for a politician it may not be the right one but at least the people in my constituency appear to have approved of what I did.
I do not see in the statement made by the Minister any worthwhile change. What he has done since he came into office were matters which I had decided on and which were ready to come into operation when he took office or were well in the planning stage. I will be interested this time next year to find out what improvements he has made. The foundation laid by the Fianna Fáil Party in the field of education has been accepted by everybody as being of a very fine quality indeed. The steady build-up at primary, post-primary and third level education levels has been favourably commented on by experts from other countries as well as by experts at home. The foundation and structure are sound. Let us continue to build on it in a well planned manner for the benefit of our children and for the future well-being of our country.