Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Oct 1973

Vol. 268 No. 4

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £10,742,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education (including Institutions of Science and Art), for certain miscellaneous educational and cultural services and for payment of sundry grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Education).

The main point of my contribution last night related to that part of the Department of Education concerned with youth services. I stressed that there is a great need for an out-of-school education and child welfare programme. I would like to see the Minister encouraging greater use of school facilities for after-school hours. Because of the tremendous lack of recreational facilities, particularly in the cities, greater use should be made of schools under proper supervision. With the creation of the new office of youth worker, whose salary is paid for by the Department of Education, there should be greater liaison between school managers, these people and the Department of Education. There are excellent facilities available in many of these schools and it should be remembered that it is the taxpayer's money that has been used to provide these facilities.

This is something where more of the school managers who are a little scared about allowing their gymnasiums or recreational facilities to be used for after-school activities should be brought into line with the kind of thinking behind our attitudes towards creating better facilities for our young people. As I stated last night, only 30 per cent of young people in the whole country are being catered for by youth clubs. That 30 per cent are not being catered for adequately. At the moment there are no special facilities in higher educacation institutions for training courses for youth leaders. I should like to see the creation of career structures for youth leaders and a number of our to the social field so that when a youth leader graduates from university he will have the qualifications that will enable him to take up a job in the social field. Possibly it might be a teaching career of some kind. There are training facilities in Britain for youth leaders and a member of our young people have got this training but they do not receive any support from us. I should like the Minister to examine the possibility of subsidising youth workers who take these courses——

If that is so it is an innovation and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us more about it. I know of one youth leader who was granted admission to a school in Britain completely on ability alone but he found it difficult to earn his living and to study at school. He came from a family who did not find it possible to send him money; at the time I tried very hard to get a subsidy paid to him but I did not succeed. We should try to create the kind of opportunities that exist in Britain. Perhaps some of the officials of the Department, together with the Parliamentary Secretary who has responsibility for this matter, could visit some of these places. It would be well worthwhile.

I understand that the Minister was at Skerries a few weeks ago at a youth seminar—he was there on Saturday and I attended on Sunday. I am sure he must have been impressed by the dedication and the enthusiasm of the youth leaders present at the meeting. They are looking for support from the State and I am asking for this help for them. The State should offer them the assistance they need so urgently.

There has been considerable controversy regarding the College of Art. Last June I visited the college and I came away very favourably impressed and very much aware that the image of the college held by Members of this House and the public generally is not a true one. The number of what might be called "politico-students", the mob who are making much of the trouble, are not representative of the vast majority of the students who only want to get on with their work. It has been said to me that the people who are causing the trouble want to be politicians masquerading as art students.

I saw a considerable amount of the work done by the students and I felt a tremendous sense of pride that this country has such talent. I would urge the Minister to visit the college; he might, perhaps, just walk in and have a look around and I know he will be very impressed. I should like to see greater liaison between the College of Art and the IDA. We should try to ensure that these young people will not leave the country. They are capable of producing beautiful designs in metal work, jewellery and painting and we should encourage the establishment of an administration that would allow them to develop their art.

One of the students in the college won an all-Ireland competition a few years ago, she did very well this year and won a scholarship to Norway. Her work was much admired by people from America and there were many inquiries for this student to set up a workshop. There should be a link between students who graduate from the college and the work they will do afterwards. They should be given the right kind of advice and they should have help from people who know how to handle the business aspect. Many of the young people go into a firm and are given work to do. However, they are not allowed to develop their natural ability and this is not desirable. If a young man gets married and has a family he must earn his living; consequently he will concentrate mainly on the bread and butter material and will devote less time to developing his artistic ability. If the Minister would give some thought to this matter he would be doing useful work. The standard of work in the College of Art is excellent. All the students want to do is to get on with their work and the Minister should ensure they are permitted to do so. In this he will have my support and the support of my party.

In connection with pupil guidance, the Minister stated that this country came late to appreciate the need for this guidance, perhaps because our schools were so small and work opportunities were so scarce there appeared to be little need for formal structures. The Minister said that perhaps because we were late in the field we could avoid some of the mistakes others were forced into by pressure of circumstances. He said the service being developed by our schools at present bids fair, when it is extended to all schools, to be one of the best in Europe. The Minister stated that in saying this he was not boasting but was setting a standard we must strive to achieve. This was set by his predecessor, Deputy Faulkner. The credit for that scheme must go to Deputy Faulkner.

I agree wholeheartedly with those who say that we must not turn out academic morons but if there is to be a situation in which there is much cramming of students and in which competition continues to become keener, we will turn out people who are incapable of using their intellect, who will be cut off completely from the realities of life and who, when they have completed their studies, will find that the university of life is a different course altogether. As I have stated on other occasions, some of the most intelligent people I have met have received little or no education while some of the most unintelligent ones had received a great deal of education. We must never make the mistake of equating intelligence with education. I agree with the Minister when he says that we must create an atmosphere in which people can work at tasks they understand but that at the same time we must not bring up our children in an atmosphere in which they are competing with each other all the time. Such an atmosphere would result within a short time in a nation of very many neurotic people.

I am pleased to read in the Minister's speech of the developments in relation to education research. My advice in this context would be to be brave because investment in this field is well worthwhile. Some projects may fail but generally speaking efforts in this regard pay dividends in so far as the development of new ideas and approaches is concerned.

In the section of the brief dealing with schoolbuilding I hope the Minister is not sounding a warning of a slowing down in this regard. He refers to the current problems being experienced by our nearest neighbour in their schoolbuilding programme and says that many other countries have similar problems. I hope that is not an indication that there is to be a cutback in our programme of schoolbuilding. Of course, we must rationalise and use our resources to the greatest benefit of the community as a whole. Sometimes this entails making decisions that attract severe criticism but in the distribution of our resources we must think first of our children.

In conclusion I would pay a tribute to the National Gallery. This is something of which we can all be proud. The paintings there are exhibited in a magnificent way. The lighting and arranging are excellent. There is also a very good restaurant on the premises. Our National Gallery is as good a gallery as any I have seen anywhere on the Continent.

Regarding the transferring of the Department of Education to Athlone —a move that was mooted some time ago—I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether this move is still on or whether the idea has been left in abeyance.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

It is usual during the debate on this Estimate to find that the speakers are confined to teachers and to ex-Ministers for Education. However, that will not deter me from airing my views on education. First, I compliment the Minister on the fine job he has been doing during his short term of office and I congratulate him on presenting us with a clear and concise Estimate speech, a speech which could be understood easily by those of us who are not au fait with the workings of the Department.

I have a number of queries to put to the Minister and I have many views on education and I will avail of this opportunity to express them.

Perhaps the Minister and his opposite number on the other side of the House do not regard education in the same way as it is regarded by those of us who are not members of the teaching profession. For my part I think of education first from the point of view of a parent and, secondly, I think of it in terms of my constituents and how it affects children in rural Ireland in particular. For a long time I have been very concerned at the way in which education is going in this country. We should ask ourselves here what we mean by education. When we speak of education do we mean the imparting of a little learning to our children or are we concerned with the provision of a true education for our children, an education that will fit them for what is best in life for them?

Our system is comprised of primary, secondary and university education but if a child does not fit into each niche along the line he is considered a drop-out. This should not be the case. There must be a place in society for each of our children and surely it is within our capacity here to devise a system which will ensure this. Our system of primary education is very good. However, the managerial system that is in operation is outdated. Parish priests and curates, regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, should not be saddled with this responsibility. They get all the barbs that are going but get none of the plums. I think it is a system that we inherited from the British and which we have never changed.

There are many schoolbuildings in rural Ireland that are in very bad condition. Some of them have no sanitary facilities. This is a situation that should not be allowed to continue. I agree with the Minister that one-teacher schools should go but I am not so sure about two-teacher schools. At any rate, no school should be closed without there being prior and full consultation with the parents concerned. In this context I might add that the Minister has avoided closing a few schools in my constituency during the past few months as a result of pleas made by the parents.

I am glad to note that the training period for teachers is to be extended to three years. I have no wish to be unduly harsh on all of those teachers who have had only the two-year training period. Many of our national schoolteachers have given service to the community, especially in rural Ireland, that was well beyond the course of their duties and of their school hours but, on the other hand, there have been cases of teachers being appointed who should never have been appointed. In my constituency I had reason to approach a school manager in regard to one of the teachers in his school but he told me that it was almost impossible to remove a teacher from his position if the Department did not agree to such action. I can understand this reluctance on the part of the Department. Problems arise because of people entering the profession who have no desire to teach and consequently children suffer.

During the past few years I have noticed a general relaxation in teaching subjects through Irish in the primary schools. I have always held the opinion that the best way of encouraging children to speak Irish is to encourage them to speak the language during their recreation time. There are views in some of the secondary schools that should a snob value be attached to Irish, there would be a rush to learn the language. The teaching of very young children through Irish was a mistake.

Now that we have come to what is termed "free education" for all our children—I regret to say it is not free and that it is not education—all parents are anxious that their children should receive secondary education. This is wrong, and pupil guidance should be given at national school level, say, at 11 or 12 years. The children should be screened and parents advised that such-and-such a child would be better off going into the local vocational school rather than the local secondary school. I see the Minister is anxious that we should call them all "secondary", but for the purpose of the few words I want to say I shall keep them distinct.

The vocational schools in the West of Ireland are superb, but, funnily enough, the general run of people in rural Ireland are not educated to the idea that children coming out of vocational schools are as good if not better than those coming out of secondary schools. There is a tendency to look upon the vocational school as the poor relation of the secondary school. This is a great tragedy. Now with the new regional technical colleges all over the country, vocationally they seem to be getting ahead of the secondary schools. This is a good thing and the sooner parents realise it the better. This is why I think it is important that children should get guidance at ten, 11 or 12 years of age as to what direction to face once they leave the primary school.

If the children were screened it would be possible to segregate the children who are slow learners and give them help. We had this experience with one of our own children. I thought this child would never learn to read, but with the little bit of extra help she got in a special school she learned to read in no time and is back in her own stream in an ordinary school. In all large towns in Ireland there should be at least one teacher who would take these slow learners. It is not a big problem nowadays to get children into a school from any place. If the parents in rural Ireland found that there was a teacher purely for slow learners in every town or within ten miles radius they would get their children in. I am sure of that because parents have asked me: "Is there any hope of getting special tuition for so-and-so. She is a slow learner."

Some boys are particularly slow to start; it is not that they are mentally slower; somewhere along the baby years they have missed out on something and have failed to get the initial impetus it takes to start them off. I think little boys are mentally lazier than little girls, but unfortunately they get along quicker in the end. However, perhaps the competition is good for them.

Secondary education for their children is the ambition of all parents in this country. It is the wish of every Member of this House that each child be given a secondary education whether it be at an academic school or a vocational school. I think it was the late Donogh O'Malley who started what we term the "free education scheme." We tried to run before we could walk. We gave children the opportunity of going into secondary schools of some description but we did not provide them with the school buildings. In my constituency the school buildings are appalling. In two different schools in my constituency there are 17 pre-fabs. In one instance the buildings are so close together that the children can only get through in single file. A boy and girl dashing through the passage in one school collided headon and had to be carried off unconscious. These schools have no playing facilities; they have no assembly hall or music room.

Perhaps it is not fair to single out one particular school but I shall mention one. In the town of Scarriff the secondary school and the vocational school merged about five years ago on the promise that a brand new school would be built. They moved into the vocational school which was a three roomed building. They now have 18 pre-fab rooms, many of them with broken floors and windows and other defects. No room in the building is big enough to accommodate 30 children; yet there are over 30 children in most of the classes and there is the type of desk and chair that one would see sometimes at conferences, the chair and a little shelf in front for a desk. I understand the children spend a great deal of their time roaming around looking for chairs. The teacher, when he is finished his class has nowhere to sit, so he goes out and sits in a classroom until the next class. These conditions should not exist in our schools. It is not fair to the teachers or to the students.

I sympathise with the Minister. Where he is going to get the money for all these schools I do not know, but school buildings will have to be provided or else we cannot give our children education. The Minister referred to academic morons. There is no doubt we shall turn out morons, either academic or technical, if we are just pushing them through five years of schooling in these conditions. We cannot call a child educated if he goes through five years of schooling without learning music or elocution, if he is not prepared for a job interview, if he is not prepared for life.

There is great emphasis in the secondary school on marks. There is snob value or one upmanship attached to the fact that so-and-so got five, six or seven honours. It means very little. One girl in my constituency came to me recently and said: "I got seven honours in my leaving certificate, but I failed my interview for the call to training." I was not surprised. The same girl spoke with the flattest West of Ireland accent you could hear. She threw herself into a chair. She neither sat up nor spoke up. I certainly would not have her minding my cat or my dog let alone minding my children or teaching them. I can understand the reason why she failed the interview. She was very young, only 17. She was mentally quite bright but was not prepared for interview, and this is something that should be concentrated on in schools.

Children should be taught how to walk in and out of rooms. They should be taught to speak so that they can be easily heard. Elocution should be taught. I mentioned this to a nun in a convent in my constituency but she said that they were not paid for elocution classes. Having listened to the Minister's clear diction I wonder whether it would be wise to ask him to pay elocution teachers to teach in the schools. Good diction is important to children when looking for jobs. The way some children speak and walk does not help them.

At some stage during their time in secondary school children should be screened and those who are obviously slow learners should be put into special classes and teachers put in charge of such classes. This could easily be done in big towns where there are over 1,000 children going to school. In such towns a couple of teachers should be able to cope with the slow learners.

Young people who intend to be farmers should be encouraged. There was a tendency to ignore the education of young people who intended to remain on farms. Farming is now very profitable. It is a skilled job. Boys and girls who intend to farm should be given every opportunity to study farming. I am not speaking about university students. I am speaking of people who need a good education in farming at a lower level. The economy of the country depends to a large extent on farming and we cannot afford to have second-rate farmers. We do not want uneducated farmers who do not know their business. They can learn the necessary skills at good farming schools.

The Minister spoke about the education of disadvantaged children. I presume he was talking about the mentally handicapped. He spoke of areas where the conditions were not as good as they should be. In the West we have a high rate of mental handicap. We are getting more places all the time for the mentally handicapped. I would like to pay tribute to the wonderful people who work in these schools. They work long hours and give devoted service to the children. We should thank them for what they do. The parents of a mentally handicapped child often suffer great anxiety in trying to educate them sufficiently to take care of themselves. I have seen parents at their wits end because of their worry over a mentally handicapped child. They knew that of themselves they could not do enough for their child. Tremendous work is being done in these special schools. Any Deputy who has never visited one of these schools for the mentally handicapped should do so and should see for himself the marvellous work being done for these children. Any money spent on such schools is usefully spent. These children will be a care on the State all their lives. The more they can be trained to help themselves and the more we can integrate them, even for a few hours a day, the better for the country as a whole.

At Limerick there is a new college of physical education. This facet of education has been neglected up to now. Some of the boys' boarding schools did a great deal of physical education, but on the whole it has been neglected. Physical education is good for character formation. No matter how many honours in examinations a student gets, all parents hope that their children will have good character formation. Team games are particularly important. It is important for children to learn to play with other children. They must learn to win or lose. They must learn how to behave in victory and defeat. This new college will turn out teachers who, I hope, will work in primary and secondary schools later on.

The new regional technical colleges are a great idea. Technical education has not been as good as it might have been in the areas outside Dublin. Technical education and training are most important in this modern age. It is now recognised by parents that a child who goes through one of the regional technical colleges is as well equipped as one who goes through university. The job opportunities are perhaps even better for the students from these colleges. I know of university graduates who are driving ambulances and digging graves because they are unable to find suitable jobs.

I am not going to comment on university education in this country. I am not in a position to do so. It appears to me that the university students are rather given to marching and demonstrating and are forgetting that the State is paying a great deal of money to keep them at college. They are protesting at things inside and outside the college. It is good to see the young people concerned about what goes on in life, but I would prefer to see them concerned about their studies for a few years. The children of parents who keep them at college do not seem to realise how much it costs to keep them at university.

I heard Deputy Briscoe referring to the College of Art. In my experience there are strikes there very often. There was a strike there last week and several strikes last year. This is a great tragedy. Something will have to be done about it. Some of these students have great capabilities but they seem to be always outside the college instead of inside it. The Minister should examine this matter.

I love the National Gallery. The schools should bring children to see it more often. It is part of their education. The niceties of life are often skipped over, particularly in the boys' schools. Boys tend to regard the learning of music and looking at painting as "cissy". Anything one learns can never be a disadvantage.

Perhaps we should leave the discussion of these topics to the teachers. I am speaking from a parent's point of view. I have many children to put through school and possibly through university. I am speaking also from a constituency point of view. I get many complaints from my constituents. The Minister has a most difficult task. Over the next few years his task will be concerned with the provision of secondary schools for the children.

We had the controversy about whether community schools are a good thing or not. Initially, and this is my personal view, I thought they were not. Now I think they are. I think that having all the children on the same campus is a good thing. It allows for interchange of teachers and pupils. I can well understand the anxiety of the religious in some cases and the anxiety of the vocational teachers about community schools. The religious, particularly, have given their service at great cost and self-denial. I remember a priest once saying to me: "All education is done by the religious in this school by obedience and self-denial." I think a lot of that is true. They give up practically everything to teach in those schools. They are, perhaps, a bit uneasy about what their position will be, whether they will lose control over their assets, et cetera. It is hard to blame them. My own view is that they should take a hard look at education and try to come to grips with the situation and try to recognise that education, like everything else, does not stand still, that it evolves and that the bigger unit in the bigger town would seem, to a person who is not a teacher, to be the better thing.

Here again I would appeal to the Minister. Education does not stand still, it keeps moving. If the Minister finds that decisions taken two or three or even one year ago now prove in changing circumstances to be wrong, I beg of him and any succeeding Minister to change them immediately. If he feels we made a mistake in going in a certain direction then let him have the courage to come out and say we made this mistake and change the direction and do what is best for our children. This is what we all want. On all sides of the House we want the best education for the children, for all the children of the country, whether they are attending primary school, secondary school, vocational school, university or, indeed, a school for the mentally handicapped. It should be our ambition in this House to fit every child who goes into any of those schools for something in life. It can be done and it should be done.

I should like to say a little word of thanks to the civil servants in the Minister's Department, some of whom I am always bothering. They are extremely helpful and polite.

Sé mo bharúil féin agus barúil mo phairtí go bhfuil sé de cheart ag gach leanbh sa tír seo an Ghaeilge a fhoghluim—a bheith ábalta í a labhairt, í a scríú agus í a léamh, ach go h-aírithe í a labhairt. Nuair a fhásann sé suas tá sé de cheart aige í a labhairt nó gan í a labhairt, ach brathann sé sin air féin. Caithfimid polasaí an Rialtais seo i leith na Gaeilge a bhreathnú ar an mhéid atá ráite agam, agus fiosrú a dhéanamh le fáil amach cé acu an mbeidh nó nach mbeidh an seans ag gach páiste Éireannach an teanga a fhoghluim faoin pholasaí sin.

Ba mhaith liom a rá ag an bpointe seo gur dhúirt mé cheana féin ar thelefís, fhad is a bhí mé im Aire, gur mhaith liom deireadh a chur leis an Ghaeilge mar ábhar teipithe san ard teistiméireacht, ach sul a dtiocfadh liom sin a dhéanamh bheadh orm, dá gcreidfinn sa mhéid a dúirt mé cheana féin, a chinntiú go múinfí an Ghaeilge in achan scoil sa tír, ins an dóigh go mbeadh achan pháiste ábalta í a labhairt. Seo an áit a raibh an faidhb mhór. Rinneadh a lán cíoradh ar an cheist acu fiú ansin ní raibh an réiteach ar fáil. Cuireadh coiste taighde eolaíochta ar bun chun an scéal a bhreithniú agus shocruigh mé ar fanacht ar thuarascáil uatha chun cuidiú a thabhairt domh breith ceart a thabhairt ar an gceist. B'sin í mo bharúil an dóigh ceart le tabhairt faoi réiteach a aimsiú ar ábhar chomh tábhachtach leis an cheann seo.

Ní raibh mé, mar a dúirt mé cheana, in éadan an rud ar a tugadh Gaeilge éigeantach air a chealú, ach sé atá ag déanamh imní domh ar an gcéad dul síos nach bhfuil barántas ar bith sa pholasaí nua go bhfaighfidh gach páiste sa tír seo seans an Ghaeilge a fhoghluim mar is ceart agus sa dara háit tá mé imníoch fán tionchar a beidh ag an pholasaí i leith oideachais.

Ag tagairt don chéad rud a luaigh mé, sé sin, an mbeidh an seans ag gach páiste sa tír an teanga a fhoghluim mar is ceart. Dúirt mé nach bhfuil barántas ar bith sa pholasaí seo gur mar sin a bheidh. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil sé ráite ag an Aire go mbeidh clár ar leith leagtha síos don Ghaeilge agus go gcaitfir í a theagasc i ngach scoil go bhfuil caipíocht ar fáil ón Roinn acu, ach caidé mar a thig leis a chinntiú go mbeidh an Ghaeilge a theagasc mar is ceart, agus ba mhaith liom béim a leagadh ar "mar is ceart" do pháistí nach mbeidh an Ghaeilge in a ábhar scrúdaithe acu, fiú dá mbeadh sé sásta é a cinntiú tré scaifte mór cigire a chur ar fáil don ábhar seo amháin, gan tagairt do cigirí do na h-ábhair eile? Tá a fhios aige nach bhfuil seo indéanta agus ins an atmosphéar atá ann an lá atá inniu ann níor mhaith leis an Aire a rá go ndéanfadh sé a leithéid. Nuair a thiocfas brú na scrúdúcán ann tig leis an Aire a bheith cinnte go mbeidh an Ghaeilge fágtha i leath taoibh i leith na scoláirí nach mbeidh an Ghaeilge mar ábhar scrúdaíthe acu agus níl ann ach cur-i-gcéill a rá nach mbeidh.

An dara rud a fheicim contráilte anseo fén pholasaí ná go bhfuil i bhfad barraíocht béime a chur ar scrúdaithe. Gheobhfaidh scoláire buntáistí áirithe má éirionn leis i scrúdú na Gaeilge. Caidé a tharlóidh? Déanfaidh an scoláire Gaeilge mar ábhar scrúdaíthe leis an bhuntáiste sin a fháil agus gidh go mbeidh cuma ar seo i dtéarmaí gineireálta go bhfuil sé seo níos tarrantaí ná an rud a tugadh Gaeilge éigeantach uirthi ní bheidh toradh níos fearr leis ó thaobh an Ghaeilge a chur a labhairt i measc pobal na tíre seo. Caithfimid béim i bhfad níos láidre a chur ar labhairt na Gaeilge agus ar shuim na ndaoine taobh amuig den scoil a mhúscailt i gceist na Gaeilge agus an tábhacht atá ag baint léi i leith an náisiúnachais.

An mbeidh scrúdú béil Ghaeilge ann muna bhfuil Gaeilge ina abhar scrúdaithe ag scolaire?

Sa chéad raiteas a chuir an tAire ar fáil i leith an pholasaí nua dúirt sé go rabh cinneadh déanta aige onóracha sa Ghaeilge a áireamh mar dhá onóracha. Ní labhairfidh me anseo faoi láthair ar an taobh oideachasiúl den chinneadh seo, ach dúirt mé ar an chlár telefíse in ar labhair mé fan pholasaí go raibh an cuma air go mbeadh scaifte beag élitist ag foghlaim na Ghaeilge d'fonn dhá onóracha a fháil agus go raibh seans an-láidir ann gurb é an deireadh a bheadh leis gur beag Gaeilge a theagascófaí do na paistí uilig eile ba chuma caidé bhí leagtha síos ar clár na scoile. Tá mé cinnte go fóill gur mar sin a bheidh sé.

Cúpla lá in a dhiaidh sin tháinig an tAire amach leis an dara ráiteas—is docha in dhiaidh aird a thabhairt ar an mhéid a dúirt mé ar an chlár telefíse —agus dúirt sé go raibh sé anois socruite aige gurb ionann pas sa Ghaeilge san ard teistimeireacht agus dhá phas. Pé cuidiú a thabharfaidh sé seo do aithbheocaint na Ghaeilge agus ní fheicim cions gur ar scrúdaíthe a bhfuil an béim go fóil, go gcuideoidh sé leis an aithbheocaint, ach, mar dúirt mé pé cuidiú a thugann sé don aithbheocaint, tá sé cinnte go ndéanfaidh sé an dochar do chúrsaí oideachais.

Dúirt mé go minic fhad agus a bhí mé im Aire Oideachais, agus feicim go bhfuil an rud cheana á rá ag an Aire faoi láthair, go bhfuil i bhfad barraíocht de na scoláirí ag gabháil do chúrsaí acadamiúl agus ar son leas na bpáistí féin agus leas an náisiúin go gineireálta go mba cheart do chuid mhór daofa seo bheith ag gabháil do chúrsaí teichniúla. Dúirt mé fosta go minic go raibh an chuid ar fad de na páistí ag fáil an ard teistiméireachta in ábhar áirithe agus nárbh bhfiú faic an teistiméireacht sin. Ach ar a laghad bhí ar na scoláirí seo pas a fháil i gceithre ábhar seachas an Ghaeilge chun pas a fháil sa scrúdú. Anois ní gá ach pas i dtrí ábhar seachas an Ghaeilge a fháil chun pas a fháil sa scrúdú. Ní fiú a rá gur gá dófa go fóill a bheith ag gabháil do chúig ábhar don ard teistiméireacht. Beidh brú na scrúdaithe ann agus sin an rud a shocróidh cad iad na h-abhar a dhéanfaí. Tá sé comhar a bheith cinnte go ndéanfaidh scoláire ar bith a bheidh ag iarraidh an dá phas a fháil tré Ghaeilge a dhéanamh—go mbeid an scolaire sin ag déanamh ábhair acadúla. Smaoithigh anois ar ard teistiméireachta i nGaeilge, Béarla, stair agus tír eolas agus cuir ceist ort féin "An bhfuil cothrom na Féinne á fháil ag na daltaí seo?" Má fhaghann siad pas den tsaghas sin tá fhios agam go mbeidh áthas orthu féin agus ar a mhuintir go ceann tamall gairid ach nuair a théann siad chuig fostaitheoir lena leitheid de teastas ní fada go dtiocfaidh athrú aigne orthu agus ní don Roinn nó don Aire a bheidh siad buíoch.

Bheinn sásta go leor pas sa Ghaeilge san ard teistiméireacht a áireamh mar dhá phas dá mbeadh ar an scoláire ábhar láime agus súile a dhéanamh chomh maith, sé sin, dá mbeadh adhmadóireacht agus miotalóireacht agus ábhair den sort sin ann mar is eol dúinn is fiú ard teistiméireacht pas leis na h-ábhair sin ann. Is fiú ard teistiméireacht ag leibhéal pas nuair atá ábhair mar sin ann.

Le críoch a chur leis an chuid seo den díospóireacht ba mhaith liom a rá arís nach raibh mé in éadan deireadh a chur leis an Ghaeilge mar ábhar go dteipfeadh scoláirí san scrúdú ar fad mar gheall air, ach tá mé cinnte go raibh gá len a lán taighde fá dtaobh de dá mbeimid chun rud éigin a chur in a áit leis an pholasaí náisiúnta a chur i gcríoch. Bhí an taighde sin ar siúl agam. Tá sé soiléir gur beag an smaoineamh a rinne an Comhrialtas fá dtaobh den pholasaí úr a cuir siad i gcríc. Bhí sé iontach aisteach dreamanna mar Conradh na Gaeilge Gael Linn agus an LFM ag moladh go h-ard an athrú pholasaí an lá in dhiaidh dó theacht amach gan smaoineadh de chineal ar bith a dhéanamh faoi. Thiocfadh liom an LFM a thuigbheál, ach na dreamanna eile. Tá mé cinnte de rud amháin—dá dtabharfainn isteach polasaí den chineál seo nuair a bhí mé im Aire go strocfadh siad as a chéile mé. B'fhéidfir gurb é dearcadh na ndaoine seo ná mar deirtear sa Bhéarla "They were thankful for small mercies".

Fiú amháin nuair a fuair na h-eagraíochtaí Gaeilge amach narbh fhiú dhá onóracha onór amháin sa Ghaeilge, ach i leith deontas don ollscoil níor chualamar gíocs asta. Tá a fhios agam gur chuir an tAire ráiteas amach á rá nach dtiocfadh leis dhá onóracha a áireamh don Ghaeilge i gcás cead a fháil chun dul isteach sna coláistí oiliúna nó sna coláistí réigiúnacha mar go raibh iomaíocht ansin agus nach mbeadh sé cothram. Ní fheicim go bhfuil mórán san argóint sin mar leagann an tAire agus an Roinn síos na coinníollacha a bhíonn ann do chomórtas ar bith, agus tá a fhios againn uilig nach dtig le duine fháil isteach sna coláistí oiliúna gan onóracha sa Ghaeilge agus ar a laghad pas sa Bhéarla agus sa matamaitic. Más mar sin atá an scéal ní fheicim cad chuige nach dtiocfadh leis an Roinn nó leis an Aire athrú eile a dhéanamh le dhá onóracha a áireamh don Ghaeilge áit a gheobhadh an scoláire onóracha sa Ghaeilge agus é a chuntas mar sin.

Taobh amuigh den pholasaí úr seo tá cúpla rud ar cheart dúinne smaointiú orthú fé cheist na Gaeilge.

Cad chuige a bhfuilimid ag iarraidh í a aithbheoú? Mar dúirt mé sa Teach seo go minic, tá an Ghaeilge sa tír seo againn le comhar a bheith dhá mhíle bliain agus sílim go n-aontóidh achan duine gur droch lá é an lá a leigimid don Ghaeilge a ghabháil i léig. Cions go raibh an Ghaeilge mar gná theanga na tíre seo fhad agus a bhí, támuid uilig múnlaithe ar dhóigh áirithe dá bharr sin.

Is teanga beo í an Ghaeilge. Tá sí á labhairt go fóill mar gná theanga na ndaoine i n-áiteacha áirithe sa tír—fiú i mo Dháilcheantair féin i gCo. Lú ní fada ó fuair an cainteoir dúchais deireanach bás. Sé an dearcadh atá ann anois in a lán tíortha go mba cheart na teangacha laga a shabháilt go bhfuil rud éigin fiúntach le tabhairt acu do cultúr tír ar bith.

Is cuimhin liom roinnt bhliain ó shin gur léigh mé óráid a thug an t-Uasal Hallstein a bhí ar feadh tamaill mar ceannaire ar an gComhmhargadh, óráid a thug sé i Zurich, agus dúirt sé gurab í an aidhm a bhí acu aonad eacnamaíochta amháin a bheith acu do na tíortha uilig sa Chomhmhargadh agus gur mhaith leo dá mbeadh aonad polataíochta ann fosta, ach nach raibh siad ag iarraidh cultúr amháin a bheith ann mar gur thuig siad go dtugann cultúr amháin saibhreas do na cultúir eile.

Támuid uilig anso, sílim, aontaithe go mba cheart an Ghaeilge a aithbheoú. Nil muid go fóill aontaithe ar an dóigh ar cheart seo a dhéanamh. Tá mé féin go mór den bhárúil go mba cheart taighde i bhfad níos cruinne a bheith déanta sul ar cuireadh polasaí úr i bhfeidhm. Mar adúirt mé cheana go minic sa Dáil, ní ghlacfadh sé an oiread sin ama ach cinnteodh sé go mbeimid chomh cinnte agus a thiocfadh linn a bheith go sabhálfaidh an chuid sin dár gcultúr is tábhachtaí atá againn, an Ghaeilge.

Mar focal scoir ba mhaith liom a rá nach bhfuil sé cruinn gur theip glan ar an iarracht a bhí a dhéanamh an Ghaeilge a aithbheoú. Ta anachuid daoine sa tír seo a thuigeann Gaeilge, a léann Gaeilge agus a scríobhann Gaelige cions gur fhoghlumigh siad Gaeilge faoi an chóras a bhí ann. Sé an áit a rabh an locht ná nár labhair go leor daofa í. Inseoidh an aimsir caidé mar éireoidh léi san am atá le teacht.

I should like to refer to the resignation of An tUasal Seán MacGearailt as secretary of the Department of Education. His brilliant, incisive mind, his ability to think clearly, his recognition of the need for change in our system, his absorbing passion for the development of youth, all combined to make his contribution to education one of exceptional quality. His close involvement with that excellent publication, Investment in Education, which laid down the guidelines of future development in education would, of itself, I am convinced, have been sufficient to mark him out as an educationalist of a very high order. His high standing on the education scene was clearly underlined by the many tributes paid to him across the whole spectrum, tributes which were patently sincere and coming, as some of them did, from individuals and representatives of organisations who had many tough battles with him, they emphasised the sincerity and humanity that is the man. I wish him a long and happy retirement. I take this opportunity publicly to thank him for his unfailing kindness and courtesy to me during my tenure of office.

I congratulate An tUasal Seán O Conchubhair on his appointment as secretary of the Department. I feel restricted on commenting on his many excellent qualities, firstly, because he is still a serving civil ser-would prefer I did not and, secondly, because his is still a serving civil servant. My experience points to him as being an excellent secretary and I wish him well in his high office. The Department of Education are blessed in their personnel. They are all dedicated people who work quietly but with effect in the interest of education. This Estimate is very largely my own. The Minister pointed out in his speech that, while more money is made available, practically all of it is for the payment of teachers. In relation to our educational system we should always keep in mind that the most important factor is the child. There are, of course, other important factors, parents, teachers, and so on, but basically the system is there to promote and develop the child. My approach to education while Minister was and, of course, still is, that the child is the basic element. My whole aim is to ensure that the child will have his talents and abilities developed to the fullest, whatever his social background.

It will be seen by those who take the trouble to inform themselves that the growth, development and expansion of the educational system under Fianna Fáil proceeded in accordance with a well thought out and clearly enunciated overall plan. Each child is a unique human being. As I previously stated and as is pointed out in the primary curriculum handbook, each child is also a complex human being with physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs and potentialities and so deserves to be valued for himself and provided with the variety of opportunities which will enable him to develop his natural powers at his own pace and to his full capacity. How he will develop is influenced not merely by his own natural endowments but also by his environment.

The vital role of the school is to develop the child's potentialities, to foster what he brings with him from his environment and to supply that which may be lacking in that environment.

The principles underlying what the Fianna Fáil Government set out to achieve can be stated as follows: first, equality of educational opportunity for all, and that implies catering for the aptitudes and the abilities of every child; secondly, in our endeavour to achieve this object, we provided comprehensive education in both primary and post-primary schools; thirdly, the promotion of the idea of education as a continuous and integrated process.

My basic aim was to provide for every child an education that would enable him to develop his potential to the fullest possible extent. In the early stages this involved the introduction of a child-centred curriculum responding to the aptitudes and abilities of every child to enable him to make progress at the rate at which he himself was capable. In the case of the slower learner and the handicapped child our objective involved making special provision for them within the national school system. In post-primary education I endeavoured to cater for the whole range of abilities and natural bents of the pupil in an area through the provision of comprehensive education. As I stressed on many occasions, I was not inflexible in relation to the manner in which comprehensive education should be made available. I pointed out on many occasions that a secondary school, a vocational school, a comprehensive school or a community school could provide this type of education so long as it was large enough to cater for a wide range of abilities and aptitudes.

A number of group charged me with being inflexible and with insufficient communication. The facts are, as the records will show, I had numerous meetings with the various interests involved. I should point out that there was a great deal of inflexibility, to put it mildly, experienced by me from those very people who charged me with being inflexible. There was only one Minister and many and varied groups so that it was easier for them to make charges against me with many voices than it was for me to reply unless I decided that most of my time would be taken up in that way. But we were all the time coming to recognise the problem more clearly and eventually we reached a stage at which dialogue was excellent and at which attitudes had become very cordial. I have no doubt this was quite a considerable help to my successor.

I got agreement on community schools in many areas. For my part, I agreed to make changes which were felt to be desirable. These included permitting three schools to be established in Lucan instead of one and the other changes mentioned in the papers before Easter in relation to community schools, all of which the news media attributed to my successor. I had hoped that some comment would have been made by him in regard to this but, as nothing was said, I decided I had better mention some of these matters on this Estimate.

To achieve my purpose it was obvious to me from my very early days as Minister that the high priority must be the removal of the imbalance between the academic type of education and education with a practical, technical orientation. The academic slant has a historical background. It is not necessary for me to go into the details since I have done it on many occasions in the past, but it was very clear to me that, unless this imbalance was rectified, it would not be possible for us to achieve equality of educational opportunity. Neither would it be possible for us to achieve the economic progress of the country we all desired.

In my study of educational systems in highly developed countries it became very clear to me that while our system was geared almost two-thirds towards academic education and one-third towards technical education the position in these other countries was almost the exact opposite. In the last few years we succeeded in doing much to correct the imbalance. I think I should now repeat the definition of the policy and objectives of the Fianna Fáil Government in relation to education and my then Department's functions in the implementation of that policy by seeking to provide the means by which the objective could be achieved.

It is obvious that an educational system should not be an end in itself but the means whereby educational policy can be put into effect. Though this may be a truism it is necessary to restate it because very often desirable and essential educational policies are discussed not with reference to their intrinsic merits but rather with a somewhat emotional questioning as to what effect a proposed change will have on a system which, as has been said, and with good reason, has served us so well in the past. I understand and I sympathise with those who are reluctant to depart from old ways and old methods, but I would stress that what is important in educational trends are the philosophy and ideals. Different circumstances and the pace of life demand change, development and innovation in our educational system so that the true ideals and objectives of education may be more effectively served. Whole libraries have been written by countless scholars throughout the ages defining and elaborating the real aims of education. To epitomise all this wisdom in one concise definition is not easy, but I think the educational traditions of the Christian world are encompassed in the definition of education as the development of all the powers of the individual, moral, intellectual and physical, so that in making full use of his talents he may discharge his duties to God and to his fellowmen.

That, in brief, is my party's philosophy on education. It enshrines ideals and objectives which are fundamental and unchangeable, but it can be served in different ways by countries or peoples having diverse traditions and different social structures. In the case of our own country it became urgently necessary to develop our educational system very rapidly in order that our young people might be fitted to face the challenge in this technical age of a rapidly changing society.

There was no question of departing from basic educational principles, but change was necessary. This change was to a degree in the nature of accelerated evolution, though there were also certain innovations of a type which might not ordinarily evolve from this system as it stood. Every action which I took in relation to the development of our educational system was motivated by the ideals expressed in the definition I have just given and by a desire to help the young people in our schools to develop to the full.

For a number of reasons, and not least because of financial considerations, it was not possible to do all at once that might be desirable. There is no country in which educational development is not hampered to a greater or lesser degree by the lack of adequate finance. However, I can say that there are few countries—certainly no country as poor as this, relatively speaking—which have increased their finances to such an extent in the educational field as has Ireland. When Fianna Fáil came into office in 1957 the total amount spent on education was £15 million. In 1972-73, my last year in office, we not only spent the unprecedented high amount of almost £97 million in the main Estimate but we added to that £10 million which was provided in the Supplementary Estimate before the end of the financial year.

This year's Estimate, which is basically my own Estimate, shows further increases. This indicates recognition by the Fianna Fáil Party of the immense importance of ensuring the development of our most important asset—our young people. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to maintain the progress and development of education which has been to such a remarkable degree achieved in recent years and to proceed in an orderly and constructive way in accordance with the plans and the programmes for development which were already there when he took office.

I have no doubt that the Minister, now that he is charged with responsibilities, will recognise and appreciate how valuable our achievements have been and how sound are the plans we laid for future development. Looking back on the work of the Fianna Fáil Government in education, I have no doubt that the introduction of the new curriculum in primary schools was one of the most important events to take place in Irish educational history. As I explained on many occasions previously, the new curriculum is child-centred rather than curriculum-centred. The child, and his needs, is what is important rather than the subject matter. The curriculum content is arranged to suit the age, the interests and the endowments of the child. The development of the young mind is what is important and not just simply the filling of it.

The curriculum is flexible so that individual differences in children can be met. Children of the same age can vary widely in their interests and abilities, in their background, their level of attainment and in their aspirations. A flexible curriculum is required to deal with these differing abilities. Its content is influenced very largely by the environment of the child. The child's tastes, attitudes and knowledge are to a great extent the product of a social and physical environment. So, as I have already mentioned, the curriculum lays stress on the importance of learning rather than teaching.

It was clear that this new curriculum could only be developed properly in three-teacher schools or in schools with more than three teachers. Six years ago, when the policy of amalgamation of small primary schools to form larger additional units was introduced, the sole purpose was to provide better educational facilities and opportunities for the children concerned. As a result of this policy some thousands of children, who would otherwise have had the limited opportunities which can be provided in one-teacher and two-teacher schools, now have the advantage of being taught in larger schools where the new curriculum can be effectively operated.

Incidentally, I might mention that the slogan, "equality of educational opportunity", had been taken up towards the end of my term of office by some groups as if it related to third-level education only. While I have always subscribed to the concept of equality of educational opportunity, and worked as Minister and shall continue to work towards its attainment, it is something which cannot be achieved in this or any other country by a simple declaration of the acceptance of that principle.

As with so many other desirable developments, it is something that must come step by step in accordance with an order of priorities. There is little difficulty in deciding the top priority in this regard. In my view, it is in the realm of primary education where all the children are involved. When a child loses out in the primary school because of inadequate educational facilities it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for him to make good entirely that loss at the post-primary level, despite the facilities for remedial teaching at that level.

What special steps may be taken by means of financial allocation to further the idea of educational opportunity at third level can be taken, in my view, only when reasonably adequate provision for equality of educational opportunity has been established at the primary and post-primary level.

To revert to the amalgamation of primary schools, it has been alleged from time to time that this policy was dictated by financial considerations. Nothing can be further from the truth. No teacher became unemployed as a result of the amalgamation of schools, and consequently, there was no saving of teachers' salaries. In many instances it was necessary to erect new school buildings or to extend or adapt existing buildings in order that a large number of teachers and children could be catered for in the amalgamated schools.

This work involved additional capital outlay. Free transport services were provided for children affected by the amalgamation of schools so that the cost of such services for primary school children had risen from £50,000 in 1965-66 to approximately £2,000,000 in the last financial year. There were instances where teachers who became redundant because of the amalgamation of small schools elected to avail of the bonus incentive scheme under which they accepted appointments to vacancies in other schools. This represented another overall additional advantage since it meant better deployment of trained and skilled personnel.

I do not need to tell the House about the short-sighted opposition that was offered to this policy in individual cases. Placing as I did the interests of the pupils before any other consideration, I persevered in the implementation of the policy, the advantage of which became evident as it was being implemented. It is gratifying to know that many of those who engaged in such opposition have since accepted that the larger school has given greater advantages to the children. They have informed me of this and, in fact, had informed me while I was Minister. When I left office 1,000 small schools had been brought into large educational units as a result of this policy. To my mind, this was a notable step forward in the establishment of equality of educational opportunity at the level where it is most important.

I should like to refute the statements made by the Minister on many occasions in relation to what he termed lack of consultation with regard to the amalgamation of the schools. There was always considerable consultation. The Minister will learn—perhaps he has learned—that after all the consultation and discussions the Minister himself must make the decision. He has to keep in mind that the child is his chief concern.

I want to repeat that there was consultation during my period in office. I note that the Minister, while underlining his statement that there will be more and better consultation than before states that in case there should be any misunderstanding he wanted to underline the fact that there will not be any more one- or two-teacher schools erected. If it is decided it is essential to erect a new school and if the parents persist in saying they want a two-teacher school, can the Minister state what exactly he means by consultation in such a case? Does it mean he will discuss the matter with them and try to bring them over to his view but that if he does not succeed he will proceed to amalgamate the school? That is the only possible interpretation in regard to amalgamation.

I have not the slightest doubt that there was as much consultation during my term of office as there has been since the Minister took office. In fact, I read in a Sunday paper a few weeks ago that where a school was being closed the parents complained he had not consulted with them. I was used to that kind of complaint also, even when I had discussed and consulted with parents.

At this point I should like to comment on the re-opening of Dún Chaoin school and to recount briefly the history. I was appalled by the emotionally-charged language used by the Minister in his speech with regard to Dún Chaoin. I do not remember seeing its like in any Estimate speech by a Minister. While there might be a possibility of understanding language of this kind in the cut and thrust of debate, I cannot understand how the Minister could sit down and in cold blood write this kind of language on this matter.

I understand the reason the Minister is so disturbed about Dún Chaoin. He knows perfectly well that he made a decision that was unsound from the point of view of education. He knows he made a decision on a purely political basis. When he was opening this school he knew there would be only five pupils from the area at the school after the summer holidays. The Minister used some grandiose language regarding the social and cultural reasons for keeping the school open. There are always social reasons involved when two schools are being amalgamated in any part of the country; they were no different in Dún Chaoin than anywhere else. In relation to the cultural aspect, obviously there was no difference between the Irish language in Ballyferriter and in Dún Chaoin and, therefore, there was no problem in relation to the cultural aspect. It is a pitiable situation that the Minister was so insensitive to the educational needs of the children in Dún Chaoin that he opened a school of that kind. The Minister made some promises at the opening that got considerable prominence in the Irish language and in English language newspapers. These promises he did not fulfil but I will not go further into that matter because he knows what I am talking about.

I should like to recount briefly the history of the closure of the school. When the suggestion was made to me that it should be closed on educational grounds, I had the matter fully examined. A comprehensive history of the examination I made can be found on the files and they are available to the Minister. It was clear from the statistics available to me, which were later proved correct, that the numbers attending the school were falling rapidly and that the school would shortly become a one-teacher school. From the educational point of view it was clearly a case for closure.

At this point I should like to quote from a reply by the Minister to Deputy Molloy in relation to one-teacher schools. As reported at column 149 of the Official Report for Tuesday, 12th June, 1973, the Minister 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 alternative arrangements for the education of the children concerned cannot be made.

Nobody could suggest for one moment that it would not be possible to find proper accommodation for these children in the school at Ballyferriter. I had also the cultural aspect to consider. This is a problem that arises from time to time in decision making in the Department—educational advantage versus, perhaps, a religious situation; educational advantage versus the cultural situation and so on. There was no question here of any cultural damage being done, unless one were to accept that the Irish language as spoken in Baile an Fhoirtéirigh, to which it was proposed to send the children, was inferior to the Irish spoken in Dún Chaoin.

Hear, hear.

In his original reply to me, when I asked about the re-opening of this school, the Minister stressed that he did not intend any disrespect to the remaining part of Corca Duibhne. Regardless of whether the Minister meant any disrespect, this is the light in which the people in the Baile an Fhoirtéirigh area view the whole matter. I had no reason to accept that the Irish in Baile an Fhoirtéirigh was inferior to that of the Irish in Dún Chaoin. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Gaeltacht, and later as Minister for the Gaeltacht, I had considerable experience in this regard.

I wish to point out exactly what I did in relation to the school. I had each of the 13 families in Dún Chaoin approached for the purpose of ascertaining their views in regard to amalgamation. The report furnished to me by the inspector was that ten of the families were favourably disposed towards amalgamation, that one was unsure and that two families disapproved, or, perhaps, there were two families unsure while one disapproved. Having regard to the rights of the children of Dún Chaoin to all the educational advantages available I decided to close the school. Then followed the furore with which we are all now familiar. Emotion was aroused by people who were living mainly in very comfortable surroundings in the suburbs of Dublin and none of whom—I stress none of whom—would have thought for one moment of sending his children to a one-teacher school.

Hear, hear.

This emotion was created with the object of having the school re-opened. I know that the very real objective of some of these people was to intimidate and to embarrass the Government and to divert attention from the fact that these people, some of whom would like to regard themselves as language enthusiasts, were doing little or nothing to advance the cause of the language. They did not succeed while I remained as Minister because I was determined that the children of Dún Chaoin, who had now become pawns in a game played by these people, would receive, as they were entitled to receive, a proper start to their educational life.

Hear, hear.

We now hear of people who subscribed to the fund to keep the school open but one has only to read the list of the names in this connection to recognise the political character of the opposition to my closing the school.

Hear, hear.

I am wondering if any one of them ever adverted to the educational rights of the children of the area. That school has now been re-opened, not for educational or cultural reasons but purely for political reasons.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The children there are now condemned to accept what is worst from an educational point of view so as to satisfy the whims of certain individuals who, in the main, are living, as I said, in comfortable conditions in Dublin suburbia.

References were made to writers who were alleged to have emanated from the area. I understand that the school has been re-named Scoil na nUdar. Reference was made to Tomás Ó Criomthain, Peg Sayers and Muiris Ó Suilleabháin, but not one of these writers came from Dún Chaoin. They came from Na Blascóidí. When the emotional aspect of this matter was coming to a head I made inquiries in my Department in regard to any writers who may have emanated from Dún Chaoin. I was given the name of some person of whom I had never heard.

Reference was made, too, to the stand taken by the parents. Nothing of that nature would have arisen but for the interference of those to whom I have referred. I need not go into any detail in relation to the attitude of the Minister on the question of one-teacher schools, because we have had his attitude in this regard not only in the reply to Deputy Molloy but also in respect of the school transport regulations, where children were told they could only avail of transport to the nearest school except where this happened to be a one-teacher school.

One of the damaging aspects that has arisen from this whole question of Dún Chaoin is not so much whether the school was closed but that when the Minister was pressed on this matter in the House by those who were concerned with the education of the children of Dún Chaoin—this is the aspect that continues to be my concern—he did not stand by what he had said originally when he said that this was an exceptional matter. Instead, he made a virtue out of necessity and began talking of parent involvement and so on in schools, so that he would not have to close some other schools which should have been closed as a justification for his re-opening of Dún Chaoin. This is where the real damage has been done to the whole education system. Because of these pressures the Minister endeavoured, by talking of parent involvement, to overcome the obvious difficulty in which he found himself when asked here why he was closing a school which had between 25 and 35 children on the roll when he had opened a school for what we now know to be an enrolment of five children. Personally, I have no rancour regarding the reopening of the school, but I am very sad that for political reasons the future of the children of Dún Chaoin was put in jeopardy.

To hell with the children of Dún Chaoin, according to Fine Gael.

I used the term "political" both in the broad and narrowest sense of that word. I am willing to place my record in the cause of the revival of the Irish language against the record of the vast majority of those who had such a hearty disregard for the education of the children of Dún Chaoin.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I have spoken already of the new curriculum. The attitude of the teachers to it is most heartening. They have flocked with enthusiasm to courses, some of which were organised by themselves and some of which were under the auspices of the Department. They did this so that they might familiarise themselves with the various aspects of this new curriculum and to obtain informed guidance so that they might better be able to put it into operation in their schools.

The period of compulsory schooling was raised by me to the age of 15 and it came into operation on 1st July, 1972. This made the period of compulsory schooling nine as against eight years previously. While attendance at school does not become compulsory until the age of six years, children are accepted for enrolment in our national schools at the age of four years. Because of the great interest being taken by parents in recent years in the education of their children, the increasing of the school leaving age to 15 years presented no great problem regarding the provision of accommodation, because the numbers of the children between the ages of 14 and 15 who were already in attendance in our post-primary schools were comparatively large.

Again on the topic of primary education, the question of the training and supply of teachers is vital. In the year 1971-72 more entrants to training were recruited and the number of trainee teachers in the training colleges stood at a record figure of 1,400. These figures have been substantially increased for the year 1972-73. These extra admissions, with the number of students in their second year, gave at that time a total of 1,707 teachers in training of whom I think 820 completed their course in June, 1973.

In the next few years this should leave a surplus over and above what is needed to fill vacancies arising through retirement or from other causes and for additional appointments occasioned by the steady increase in the school-going population. It had been my intention that these additional teachers would be employed in those areas where, fortunately, unduly large classes continued to exist, and because of my foresight relative to the increasing of the number of trainee teachers, the Minister has been able to announce a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio in certain schools. I hope he will continue the trend set by me. I would like to emphasise, in relation to the statement made by the Minister at one of the teachers' conferences that he was making available a better pupil-teacher ratio in certain schools, that this was as a result of the extra number of teachers trained by me. One would think, not only from that statement but from the statement in his speech, that the Minister, by some peculiar manner or means, got these extra teachers out of the air.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

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.

It is rarely we get an opportunity of speaking on an Estimate for £126,133,000. Even though I may be only remotely concerned with its expenditure it is well to be here to see that some of it may percolate to the constituency I represent. I listened to the marathon performance of the previous Minister for Education and his praise of Fianna Fáil policy kept me awake. One thinks of the massive injections of Fianna Fáil policy we have had for the past 16 years. I notice a marked improvement in the students and the children of the country since Fianna Fáil went out of office.

Since VAT was removed.

If I wondered before why Fianna Fáil went out of office I know now why they went out. If that is the type of drab performance to be expected from an individual it is time the country got rid of him.

The Deputy might read my speech. He will possibly learn something from it.

I listened for three hours and I did not open my mouth.

Is dócha nár thuig sé cuid de.

The Deputy kept me awake with Fianna Fáil policy.

He mentioned himself a few times. It was not all Fianna Fáil. There was a lot of Paddy Faulknerism in it too.

And with very good reason.

To get back to the policy of the present Minister. Under the heading of education the first promise the National Coalition made was to introduce genuine consultation with parents, school authorities, teachers and students. I wonder did the former Minister do that when he was considering the community school at Clonakilty. Did he have consultation with the parents there? Did he have full consultation with the teachers and the people there and what decision did he arrive at? I heard him speak for half an hour on community schools. He praised them, told us what to expect from them, said that they were the best thing that could happen in education. What did he do about the Clonakilty community school? What went on behind closed doors? Did he consult the parents there? He forgot about the parents and therefore the parents forgot about him.

The second promise made was to transfer to an independent educational body authority for examinations and courses. That was a long time overdue. The third promise was to see to it that the policy of selective compulsion which had proved so disastrous for the Irish language over the last 50 years would be replaced by a genuine policy based on respect for and promotion of the Irish language and culture. The greatest thing that has happened in this country for 50 years is the taking of the compulsion out of the teaching of the Irish language. As one who has a love for it and a love for our country I say that "compulsion" is a word that should be taken out of education. Thank God we have a Minister in office who has the courage to do these things. I can assure the Dáil and the people that we expect from this Minister a clear-cut policy on education that will be carried out in a clear-cut manner.

One of the first things the Minister did after he took office was to see that Dunquin, whose name is known throughout the country, was restored as an Irish school. The people applauded him for that. Having regard to its prestige, the amount of money involved in keeping it open was infinitesimal in comparison with the amount of money being provided here for education. The Minister had the courage to take that decision and to restore that small school in the Dingle peninsula.

The previous Minister talked about all he did while he was in office, but he left a fair legacy to be done when he left office. Anyone who saw the schools in the Beara peninsula and the other poorer parts of my constituency would say that whoever was in office during the past 16 or 18 years was not thinking much about them. I take this opportunity to ask the present Minister to visit these areas and see the conditions of the schools and the accommodation for the children. These are poor parts of my constituency and, if the schools are to be brought up to a proper standard, they must be subsidised by the Department. If the Minister comes down to the constituency I have the honour to represent I will show him the conditions in those schools.

Another legacy on his table is the chaotic school transport system. This needs attention from the Department. In the case of families going to the same school, some of the older children can get a seat on the bus and the younger ones have to walk, or vice versa. Surely the school bus should be used to full capacity, especially in rural areas where children have long distances to travel on bad roads and in bad weather. I would ask the Minister to look into those two matters immediately.

In the Clonakilty district there is a big controversy about a community school which was mooted by the Department. Clonakilty was one of the places selected as a site for a community school. It was chosen because it was suitable and because a change was needed there. I do not want to add to the controversy but, as a public representative for the area, it is my duty to speak up here and give my views on it, and that is what I will do.

During the term of office of the previous Minister deputations came up here representing certain selected members of the community and they made arrangements with the Minister about a community school for Clonakilty. The people were kept in the dark about the result of those consultations. They were not consulted themselves and, whatever decisions were made— I cannot say what decisions were made —were made without the knowledge of the parents of the children in the Clonakilty area. It will be a great tragedy if the right decision is not made. If the right decision is not made now, the educational programme in that part of the country will be put back for many years to come. If a decision is made to have another fragmented system of education in the area, and if the opportunity which exists now is not availed of it will be very bad for the people of the area.

The Minister had the courage to change the decision on Dunquin. If other decisions have been made I am sure he will have the courage to face them and make the right decision on behalf of the people of Clonakilty. The future of the educational structure in Clonakilty is at stake. The schools there have given good service: the convent school, the vocational school and the secondary school. If the secondary school closes, what steps will be taken to provide for the students? What steps will be taken to finance the community school if it is to be built?

We heard it stated recently that a new vocational school will be provided. Where will the funds for that school come from? These are questions we want answered. We want to know; if the community school is to be shelved what will take its place? The secondary school in Clonakilty is a very old building. The teacher who has been there for a long number of years will be leaving very soon and a big problem will arise. Recently a newspaper said about the community school in Clonakilty: "It is hijacked. It is gone."

When the Minister is replying to the debate I want him to give full information about this matter. I want him to tell us who went to the office and what records are in the Department about it. The people were delighted when they read what a community school could provide for them. Can we now have those things provided if the community school is shelved? Will there be provision for free post-primary education for all the children irrespective of ability and without the use of selective procedures on transfer from primary to post-primary? Will we have these facilities in the new school? Will we have the elimination of the barriers between the secondary and vocational schools and the creation of a unified post-primary system of education? These facilities must be provided.

We must eliminate overlapping and duplication in the provision of teachers, building and equipment so that available resources of manpower and finance may be utilised to the best advantage and make them available to improve the level of services to the community in our post-primary schools. There is a growing demand in the community for increased school facilities such as halls, gymnasiums, meeting rooms, playing grounds and swimming pools. Will these be provided? I hope the Minister will give us his opinion about what should be provided for the community in the area I represent.

We are obliged to equip our children for living. We came into one sort of a world and our children and grandchildren came into a totally different world. Very definitely we need educational facilities for the whole community. We need an understanding between parents, teachers, educators and the Department, to ensure that we get what we need and what we are entitled to. This is a big problem. If a decision was made before the present Minister came into office I hope that when he looks at this problem and examines it he will make his decision irrespective of the decision reached by the previous Minister.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the many new ideas introduced since he came into office. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have shown that they are men of wisdom and courage and capable of looking after the educational facilities of this country.

I should like to extend to the Minister my congratulations on his appointment as Minister for Education and to wish him every success in his office. I am sure he realises the great responsibilities which rest on his shoulders. He is one in a long line of Ministers who have dedicated their lives to education. He will be responsible for moulding the lives of the young people for years to come. They will look to him for guidance to get the right education so that they can grow up as good citizens.

A number of Government Deputies have spoken on this Estimate. They complimented the Minister and his Department on the changes made and on the different type of Estimate introduced this year. I cannot see any great change in the document just issued to the Members of this House. The changes are minor ones. I am very proud to be a member of a party who, when in power, gave top priority to education. The achievements of the past decade speak louder than any words of mine. When we realise that in 1956-57 the total State expenditure on education amounted to something in the region of £30 million and that today the Minister in his Estimate has provided a sum of £126,133,000 for the seven Votes for which he is responsible, we realise the stride forward which has been made in education.

These figures indicate the extent of the Fianna Fáil Party's commitment to education and the wise way in which our economy has been managed to make this commitment possible. We have proceeded on the basis, especially in regard to education that it is fundamental that we cherish all our children equally. It was the acceptance of this fact that led to the introduction of the free education scheme, the free transport scheme and the free books scheme. These schemes removed the greatest obstacles to increased participation in post-primary education. In recent years they have shown a marked effect on enrolments in our primary schools. Increased enrolments and expansion of educational facilities have resulted in an unprecedented high level of school building. I hope the Minister will press ahead with the school building programme because there are still many old and sub-standard buildings in rural areas which must be replaced. A number of those schools are not heated properly and are unfit for children to be housed in.

At this point I should like to mention the grants paid to primary school managers for maintenance, heating and cleaning. These grants were increased some time ago but in my opinion they are totally inadequate. Managers cannot maintain schools at a decent standard on the current grants. In the past some managers spent their own money on keeping the schools up to a decent standard. This situation should not be allowed to continue indefinitely. I would ask the Minister to ensure that sufficient money is provided for the proper maintenance of all primary schools.

To a number of people in rural Ireland education is nothing more than the means which enables a boy or a girl to get a job in the Civil Service. It is regarded as a necessity for those who want to leave the land rather than for those who must remain on it. This is one attitude we must try to correct. Today, more than ever before, we need to give the best education we can to those on the land.

We are very fortunate in the high standards of moral training children receive in our schools. In the practical rules for teachers the teachers are directed to pay the strictest attention to the morals and general conduct of their pupils and to inculcate in them, amongst other things, the principles of temperance. This is in complete conflict with the advertising of drink on television, advertising which is having a very bad influence on many of our young people.

The changes taking place in the curricula are making it necessary to have more and more in-service training courses for teachers. It is a tribute to the teachers that so many of them avail of those courses in their free time. I would like the Minister to have a look at these services to see if teachers could be allowed time off to attend them instead of having to attend them during their holidays. It might be counter-productive if teachers are required to attend these services during holidays. The Minister might have a look at this to see if something could be done.

I would also ask the Minister to take a hard look at what is happening at post-primary levels in some rural areas. School transport has divided rural areas into catchment areas centred around a school or a group of schools. Where this school does not or where schools do not provide a full range of subjects pupils have to leave their own catchment area and attend a school in a neighbouring catchment area where their needs are catered for; by going outside their own catchment area they are unable to avail of school transport. It would be more in keeping with providing equality of educational opportunities if a full range of subjects were available in each designated catchment area. When up to 30 per cent of pupils in a catchment area have to go elsewhere because their needs are not catered for the equality of opportunity we are aiming at is not being provided.

There is need for a more flexible approach towards the question of the number of pupils required in a school in order that the full range of subjects may be made available to them. This is particularly necessary in rural areas. One school in particular comes to mind. I refer to Ballygar secondary school. Pupils in that catchment area have to travel to outlying schools in order to get the subjects they want to study. These subjects should be provided in Ballygar. Plans have been submitted to the Department and a deputation has attended on the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. I would like the Minister to have another look at this situation to see if anything can be done for that particular school. It is a small school but it is making marvellous progress. This is the kind of school we should be concerned to see survive.

In connection with vocational education, it is unfortunate for the development of the country and, in particular, for the development of rural Ireland, that vocational education should be looked on by so many as inferior. This is, of course, a traditional attitude. When Cardinal Newman proclaimed the superior merits of a liberal education he was taken as setting out not so much the merits of a liberal education as the lack of merit in vocational education. This biassed interpretation of what Cardinal Newman meant has left us with an unhealthy attitude towards vocational education and this unhealthy attitude persists to the present day. As a member of a vocational education committee I assert that this view seems to be held by the Department of Education because at every meeting our CEO complains of the delay in getting replies from the Department and the delay in getting decisions. It is a shame that this situation should be allowed to continue. Surely vocational education should get the same facilities and recognition as other types of education.

The Minister issued a circular recently relating to the change in the 1930 Act and the setting-up of a new committee to replace existing vocational education committees. The document is very vague. Many questions are left unanswered. My committee have discussed this document. In my opinion this is not really an educational document. It is a re-organisation document. Before we change the system and before we repeal the Act of 1930 I would like the Minister to tell us what was wrong with that Act. Does he think that the committees down through the years have not been doing a good job? The committees are entitled to know whether they have fallen down on the job.

The document is contradictory. I understand the Minister told the IVEA that unless primary, secondary and vocational schools come into the scheme there will be no change. To my mind that is a complete contradiction of the very first sentence in this document which says that the management of the national or private primary schools would not come into question under this scheme. It also says the management of private secondary schools will not be interfered with. These are matters that must be clarified. What is a private secondary school? I understand that schools run by the Sisters of Mercy or other religious can be described as private secondary schools.

Why is the 1930 Act being superceded? I believe the intention is to abolish vocational education committees entirely because, if the other schools are not coming in, there will be nobody except the people interested in vocational education and it is merely a matter of re-arranging the committees and giving representation to the teachers, the school management and public representatives. I notice public representatives will have only half the representation on this committee. This is wrong. When the health boards were being mooted and our Minister for Health at the time was trying to reorganise the health services we fought this particular issue; we felt public representatives should have a majority on all health boards. The same should apply to any committee such as this. If these committees are to be set up the public representatives should have a majority because they are representing the ratepayers. I should also like to know what the powers of these new committees will be. There seems to be no provision for planning educational facilities within the county. Surely if these committees are to have any meaning they must be given power. No provision has been made to give representation to parents. I believe that if we are to bring all sides along with us the parents should be represented.

The position in regard to vocational schools in County Galway is very grave. In every vocational school in that county there is overcrowding. For the past number of years the prefab classrooms have been added on to existing buildings and some of these are now in need of change. These pre-fabs are not meant to last a lifetime and some of those in the Galway schools have been in use for nine or ten years. What is the Minister's attitude towards these prefabs and towards vocational education in general?

At a meeting of the Galway committee in Ballinasloe last week the CEO made us aware of the conditions existing in the Ballinasloe school. He informed us that land has to be acquired for extensions there. The same applies to Loughrea where a site has been made available. However, the Department have asked the committee to change the Loughrea site. I understand that Department officials visited the town and inspected the site all in the space of five minutes. Surely these officials could not have made a fair assessment of the situation in that short space of time.

This convinces me that the Department are not favourably disposed towards vocational education. I hope that situation will change because the facts speak for themselves. Galway is not the only county affected by this apparent change in policy. Last week I read Press reports concerning the position in Mayo and it appears that the same chronic situation exists in that county. The Minister should have a hard look at this aspect of our educational system and see what improvements can be carried out because improvements are definitely needed.

Agricultural education is another aspect in which I am very interested. I would like to see more money provided for agricultural education. We are fortunate in Galway in having two agricultural colleges, colleges which have done fine work down the years. They have helped greatly to raise the standard of farming and, by so doing, to keep a big number of young people on the land. I look forward to the day when every youngster going into farming will have the very best standard of agricultural training that can be made available to him. Young farmers have many obstacles to overcome, particularly in the west. In my view the Minister should make agriculture a subject in the schools.

In relation to the Irish language I should like to inform the Minister that my own parish, like so many other parishes on the eastern side of Galway, has still many native Irish speakers. Many of those people are old and, unfortunately, they are not being replaced by youngsters who speak Irish as the first language in the home. The Minister should consider tape-recording the speech of some of those people so that scholars of the future may be able to study the Irish language as it was spoken in that part of the country. This would be a very useful exercise.

In regard to adult education I feel that it is very important that such courses should be provided whether by the universities, vocational schools or on television. Where they have been held these courses were very well attended. University College, Galway, launched extra-mural studies and their courses in rural areas were well attended. It is important that this should continue and that every facility be given to organise adult education courses.

Adults who attend such courses will find them very useful. Some years ago I travelled between 35 to 40 miles each night for three nights of the week to attend such a course in University College, Galway, and I found it very rewarding.

I would like to see special provision made to cater for slow learners. In a school with 400 to 500 pupils it should be possible to provide a special teacher for the slow learners. Such an appointment is necessary because slow learners get lost in the mad rush by their more intelligent pals to get high marks in examinations. If such a teacher were made available at big schools these children would not be neglected.

While great progress has been made with regard to the teaching of mentally-retarded children a lot remains to be done. Any money spent in this field is well worthwhile. I hope the Minister will continue to improve this situation because a family with a retarded child is to be pitied. Every help should be given by the State to ensure that the burden of such a family is made easier. Such children should also be guaranteed jobs when they finish school. I wonder how many of our industrialists employ such people. Jobs should be made available for them to ensure that they can take their place in society.

On the question of accommodation for students attending universities I believe that a lot of accommodation being offered is sub-standard. At this time of the year there is a big influx of students into university cities and towns in which regional colleges are located. There is a danger, because of the great demand for such accommodation that such students will be exploited by people anxious to make easy money. I spoke to a student recently who was offered accommodation which was rat-infested. This is a very dangerous situation. It shows what the pupils have to put up with. Perhaps their accommodation should be supervised by the Department of Education to ensure that students in colleges should have suitable accommodation and that they will not be put into some place where they cannot study. It is important in the years they spend in university that the accommodation offered is suitable and that they are able to study in comfort.

I agree with some of the points made by Deputy O'Sullivan regarding school transport. This scheme has been a source of trouble since it was inaugerated. I realise it is difficult to meet the wishes of every pupil and parent but perhaps there could be some relaxation of the conditions laid down by the Department with regard to this scheme. Last year I had a case of a family where two of the children were attending a secondary school and the third attending a vocational school. Because one school was a few hundred yards nearer the home the student could not avail of the transport scheme. She had to cycle to school while her brother and sister were taken by bus to their school. There is no need for this kind of cheeseparing. When the school bus is passing by the door, especially when it is half empty, the students should be given transport, even if some subsidy has to be paid.

I hope the Minister will consider some of the points I have mentioned, especially the matter I raised regarding vocational education committees throughout the country.

Deputies Coughlan and L. Burke rose.

Deputy Coughlan.

I do not mind allowing Deputy Burke to speak. I know he is in a hurry to leave. I shall await my turn to speak next.

The Deputy is giving way. Deputy Burke to speak.

First, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his achievements to date. He is doing an excellent job and I wish him every success in his post in the years ahead. One of the biggest problems facing primary teachers is the fact that much of their work is being thwarted by a lack of alignment between the primary and post-primary sectors. On the one hand, the national teachers are endeavouring to educate their pupils in accordance with the laudable philosophy of the new curriculum for primary schools. This lays stress on the development of the individual child but, on the other hand, there is massive pressure on teachers to compromise their ideals and prepare their pupils in such a way as will ensure them places in the post-primary school of their choice. Neither pupils, teachers nor parents can have it both ways. It is a pity that children may have to settle for second-best because of the lack of alignment in the system of education. It is understandable to some extent that parents judge their children's primary education on the basis of success or failure to get entry into the post-primary school of their choice. Since entry is often based on the written examination in Irish, English and mathematics, these parents will not appreciate the time spent in school on music, physical education, civics, arts and crafts activities and such subjects since there is no merit given for excellence in these areas when it comes to entrance examinations. Of course, true education means that these subjects must be taught so that the children may be developed fully.

There is need to provide sufficient places in post-primary schools. Jostling for places only occurs where there is a shortage. With the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 years there was bound to be a huge rise in student participation. In Cork city the necessary planning was not made and last June we had the unfortunate experience if widespread disappointment among parents and pupils in the Bishopstown and Glasheen Road area of Cork, which is a rapidly expanding area.

The decision of the Minister to reduce from 1st July, 1973, the size of classes in primary schools to a maximum of 45 is welcome. Unfortunately it is not always possible to make this reduction. For example, lack of accommodation may prevent it happening. In the Bishopstown boys' national school the Minister granted permission for four pre-fabs but the Cork Corporation refused permission. The matter is on appeal to the Minister for Local Government and I ask the Minister for Education to do all in his power to get the necessary permission through as quickly as possible as there is complete overcrowding in the school.

We have a long way to go to reduce the primary school classes to a tolerable number. Many educationists and the majority of teachers think that if there are more than 30 pupils in a class the children are not being given a fair deal. The Council of Education in 1954 named 30 as the optimum figure. Part of the Plowden Report on English primary schools gave results of a survey made of what teachers thought was a maximum reasonable size. They showed that I per cent considered 40 pupils as a reasonable number; 10.4 per cent said 35 pupils; 60.7 per cent said 30 pupils; 25.3 per cent said 25 pupils; 2.8 per cent said less than 25 pupils and 0.7 per cent did not know.

In his book Teaching in the City, published by Gill and Macmillan, there is a survey by Seán Kelly on what factors prevented teachers from realising their aims. The majority of teachers cited the size of classes as the major factor. If this were true in the days of more traditional class teaching it is ever so much more important today in the context of the more liberal type new curriculum with its emphasis on learning through activity. The following figures, relating to other EEC countries, show that 45 pupils per class is still a very high figure in the European context. For example, in Finland there are 32 pupils per class, in Italy the figure is 25 while in Denmark it is 20——

What is the figure for Dún Chaoin?

——in France, 25 pupils per class up to the age of seven and 35 up to post-primary level. In Holland the figure is 36 while in Belgium it is 20. The action of the Department of Education in providing colour film strips based on the Búntus system of teaching Irish is very progressive. These visual aids provide a variety of approach to the teaching of Irish. Children tend to become tired of the one approach—in this case the use of cut-out figures on flannelgraph. The Department are to be complimented on the new film strip productions. I would urge the Department to continue research into and experimenting with other language teaching aids. Tapes were provided but many teachers would prefer that the voices on the tapes were those of children rather than of adults. The situations concerned are child-centred ones. The characters involved are mostly children and adult voices acting children's parts are not always accepted by children. Perhaps the Department would consider remaking the tapes.

The decision of the Minister to set up an advisory council on teacher training at first and second levels is very much welcomed. I wish the council well in their deliberations and look forward to their recommendations. I welcome the Minister's decision to extend training for national teachers to a three-year period and hope that the national teachers claim for a degree qualification can be met in the not too distant future.

Mr. O'Connor during his presidential address at the INTO Congress at Wexford this year made a few appropriate remarks and I shall quote them as reported in the May issue of An Múinteoir Náisiúnta:

.... the INTO ... year after year, demanded a university course for all teachers. Perusing yearly congress reports and resolutions one notes the consistent demand that teacher training be integrated with a full university course leading to a recognised university degree.

Lord Stanley, Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the National Board of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland in the early 1830's established an institutional two years' course of training for national teachers "where each person who may be admitted shall study in it for at least two years before he be declared fit to undertake the charge of a school."

Surely if those education authorities of close on 150 years ago saw the necessity for a two years' course of training for national teachers in those far off days, do we consider progress as being made if today we have the same period of training for our teachers? In the light of educational developments are we equipping our teachers for the role they must play as professionals in this era of educational demands and challenge? ...

....In Ireland since the foundation of the State impressive advancement can be recorded in the social, political, economic and scientific spheres but alas we still have a two years' course of training for national teachers. There have, of course, been periodic changes in the course established in the early 1830's but for the most part these changes have been piecemeal and the building of a realistically structured course is impossible within the confines of a two years' course. Once again I wish to reiterate the INTO demand that teacher training be fully integrated with the university and that the course pursued by all teachers lead to a recognised university degree.

At that same congress Mr. Colm Ó Lionsaigh of Cork said in relation to primary teacher training leading to a fully recognised university degree, and I quote from the Evening Herald's report of the proceedings that:

... This had been official policy of the union for many years past.

While the Education Minister's announcement on Tuesday that the training period would be extended from two to three years was welcomed, they had to ensure that the award given at the end would not be a spurious or a second rate one.

The advantage of a common university qualification for all teachers were many. For example, it would facilitate transfer of teachers within a unified framework of the profession. It would also mean that primary teachers could have greater access to post-graduate courses at university level.

The attainments of pupils in standards five and six in primary schools are shown on record cards provided for that purpose by the Department. In theory these cards are to be passed to the post-primary schools to which pupils transfer but in practice many post-primary schools do not apply to the primary schools for the cards and rely on their entrance examinations instead for guidance in grading, et cetera. It would be well if the whole question of the working of this record card system were reviewed at this stage by the Minister and his Department and that it be made more efficient where deficiencies were seen to exist.

The Cork advisory council on post-primary accommodation met only once during the last academic year but this year I am glad that they have convened at an early date—on October 19th. I would impress on them the need for urgency in planning for the accommodation needs in the post-primary sector. A good start has been made by way of the provision of a community school at Mayfield and I hope that other such schools may be provided shortly in other parts of suburban Cork.

Could the Minister assure the people of Bishopstown, Glasheen Road, Ballyphehane and the Togher area of Cork that work will commence shortly on the building of a post-primary 600-student school on the 17½ acre site at Ballyphehane? Could the Minister give me any idea also of when work might commence on the building of a community school at the Farranree-Churchfield area and at the Mahon Peninsula, Blackrock, both of which are urgently needed in their respective areas.

The Cork teachers centre is nearing completion. In this context there has been very good co-operation between the primary and post-primary sectors. When completed, the centre will provide a wonderful facility for teachers and in the long term it is the children of the area who will benefit. The Department of Education have been most helpful in setting up the centre.

The advisory council on post-primary accommodation includes two inspectors of the post-primary branch. It would be very useful if the local divisional inspector of primary schools was also asked to go on this council. He has first-hand knowledge of where new primary schools are to be built in the near future. I hope that the divisional inspector, in co-operation with his Department, will soon commence building a new nursery school near the new church at Bishopstown which is now a vastly built-up area. Where primary schools are needed today, post-primary schools may be needed tomorrow.

In primary schools in Cork we have an excellent school library service. The Cork Corporation and the Department of Education each provide 50 per cent of the cost of books, and books are picked by teachers themselves each year. At post-primary level there is no such service, and this is a great pity. I believe the Department do not contribute, and the local library committee will not provide the service on their own. Mr. Seán Lehane, city librarian, and his staff are certainly due the thanks of the primary school teachers and the pupils for the wonderful service they are giving. I am sure the Minister will agree there is room also for a school library scheme in the post-primary sector.

Society is changing. Education is changing correspondingly. This is good, but we must take reasonable steps to ensure change is for the better. Very often we seem to adopt new ideas from outside just when other countries have found them wanting. All changes should be tested in pilot schemes in Ireland. Even if change is seen to be for the better it should not be introduced until (a) teachers are prepared for it through adequate, in-service training; and (b) tests are completed. Change need not be the same in all parts of the country. A uniform system does not necessarily mean that we are cherishing all the children of the nation equally.

In conclusion I would like to ask the Minister what is happening regarding the future of the Cork Dental Hospital. I appreciate the Minister has had this matter under active consideration in his Department for some time, and I know he has met a deputation from Cork during the summer. However, in view of the grave anxiety expressed by many people in Cork and in the Munster area generally, I should be grateful if the Minister would give a very favourable answer to this question, which is very important to the people of Cork.

Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire Oideachais agus leis an Rúnaí Parlaiminte. Tá postanna móra acu sa Roinn thábhachtach seo. Bhí an bheirt acu cineálta liom. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil leas na ndaltaí ar intinn ag an mbeirt acu agus má tá gearán agam le déanamh anois ní h-ionann sin is a rá go bhfuil mé á gcáineadh.

Gabh mo leathscéal as ucht beagán Gaeilge a usáid, agus b'fhéidir nach ceart dom í a usáid in aon chor ós rud é nach mbaineann an tAire usáid as sa Mheastachán. Pé scéal é, aontaím leis an nath cainte úd: "Má tá Gaeilge agat, labhair í, agus muna bhfuil, foghlaim í."

I should like to deal with some items which will probably be disjointed but I am sure the Minister will bear with me. He refers to teachers' salaries and expresses a certain amount of wonder that £71 out of every £100 in the Estimate goes to teachers' salaries. This is not a bad thing at all, because if we pay our teachers properly—for many years we did not—we shall attract people of the proper calibre. It would be very unfortunate if, because we did not pay our teachers well, we should lose the best brains in the country to industry or commerce or possibly to emigration, and I am convinced that the Minister would be on the same wavelength as myself in that regard. The quality of the teaching in any school depends 90 per cent on the quality of the teachers. We have been blessed with wonderful teachers, whether they be lay or religious, and I trust this will continue. I notice that in his Estimate speech the Minister says:

The costs of the administrative services of the Department represent 1.9 per cent of the total provision for the seven Votes, which would indicate that these costs are being kept to an absolute minimum.

When I read that I asked myself: Who prepared that statement? Of course it is the same people who are clapping themselves on the back, and I thought fit to mention it. While I am sure they have kept the cost to the minimum, it shows the amount of alignment between the administrative side and the teachers' side in the Department of Education. They might not always see eye to eye on matters, and it would be unfortunate if during the passage of time, which may be short or long, the Minister should become non-aligned. In last Monday's Irish Press there is reference to a report from the National Youth Council. It says:

The Department operates on a policy of the least information made available the better.

This is the experience of the council in so far as community schools and special education are concerned, and I must say that in some cases it has been my experience too. The Minister in his position as Minister is often somewhat isolated from his Department. Particularly in regard to the Development Branch of that Department, the Minister is often not aware of what actually happens.

I can give the Minister a specific example and one which would be fresh in his mind, that of Newbridge vocational school. This is not something new which has happened since he took office. It happened with his predecessor as well. In the case of Newbridge vocational school, the vocational committee were awaiting a reply regarding a site for 17 months; we have not got a reply since the Minister took office either. The original site we had was regarded as unsuitable and we were told to acquire a new site nearer the existing schools so that we would have one complex within easy reach of the students. We did this, but the urgency that was shown by the Kildare vocational committee did not find any corresponding urgency in the Development Branch of the Department. The Minister very kindly met a deputation of the parents of pupils attending that school, and of public representatives, in a recent visit to the county. I could see then that he was not as well briefed as he should have been, through no fault of his, I am sure, regarding the delay in these matters.

However, I would now like to congratulate the Minister on having the building people down in Newbridge yesterday to inspect the site. They found the original site suitable but not from a geographical point of view, and the present site suitable, too. I hope he will not let matters lag at this stage and that Newbridge will get the vocational school it deserves. There is urgent need for a school there. Pupils and teachers have to put up with conditions of over-crowding and lack of accommodation for far too long, and this is in a town which, outside Greater Dublin, has had the greatest increase in population. It is an industrial town where vocational education is needed. The Minister and his successors should not be fobbed off by Department officials. They should get the facts as the people see them. The Minister should stamp his authority on the Department.

I should like to deal briefly with grants for cleaning and heating national schools. These grants, even though increased, are not sufficient. Great improvements have been made due to a more enlightened attitude in the Department and among the managers because of the constant pressure by the INTO. There are still isolated instances where schools are not properly heated or cleaned. There are still schools where children are forced to sit in temperatures which would not be allowed on the factory floor. These pupils may have their breakfast at 8.30 a.m. and be without a hot meal until 4.30 p.m.

The grant for the cleaning and painting of schools is insufficient. As a result slipshod attitudes prevail in regard to cleanliness. This gives bad example to the children. More realistic grants are needed. We speak of tidy towns and litter control but our words are meaningless when the children's first contact with a public building is a contradiction of that policy. How often are our schools swept, washed and painted? Are the toilets clean? Is soap and water available to the pupils? Are proper standards of cleanliness inculcated in the pupils at an early stage?

In regard to new schools, I feel that at present there is a tendency to skimp for the sake of economy. In some regional colleges, technical colleges and school buildings, the raw beams are to be seen in the roofs. With the passage of time they may not prove very attractive to look at. The Minister opened a new orthodox and conventional type of vocational school at Castledermot recently. There were many complimentary remarks about it. The cost of this school should be compared with the cost of the more unconventional and cheaper type of school to see whether the saving is worthwhile.

I agree with Deputy Hussey, who asked a question about prefabricated schools. Some of these schools were erected five or ten years ago. Was it false economy to erect "prefabs" even in a "fire-brigade" situation? Was it economic to erect them?

The Minister mentioned that primary school classes are now restricted to 45 pupils. That is a step in the right direction. I am aware that because of this restriction pupils of four years or four-and-a-half years of age are being kept at home. I know of a man who came from Northern Ireland to live in Naas and there was no vacancy for his young child in the Convent of Mercy school there. The child has to attend a private school at great expense to his father.

The Minister mentioned a figure of £5 million for the schools. That £5 million is not enough. Comparisons between our schools and those in Northern Ireland are odious. Our schools provide a talking point for those who would belittle what we have done for education here. Money spent on schools is an investment in future generations of children.

There is a reduction in the size of large classes in urban areas. Does the Minister propose to allow a policy to continue which results in children of five years of age being kept at home? I believe children of four years of age should start school. In the early months children are being acclimatised to their new environment. They mark time for the first few months while getting used to what happens. That period of acclimatisation should take place before a child is five years old rather than after that age.

I hope the shortage of places at Naas is not repeated throughout the country. I suppose we could always adopt a policy of sending children from Ballymun down to Dún Chaoin. They would be sure of individual attention there.

The amount of money needed for new schools should be examined. The Minister's thinking on post-primary schools is the same as ours. He mentioned that large schools are necessary so that we can cherish all the children equally. I fully agree. A fuller range of subjects are needed to allow children to develop their God-given gifts. This is in keeping with the concept of community schools. The Minister agrees with the policy enunciated by Deputy Faulkner. We will allow him to go ahead with that policy without interruption. We will not raise the objections raised by the Minister's weathercock colleagues of politicians, who seemed swayed by every breeze when they were on these benches and who were against the concept of community schools.

I am glad that the Minister has decided to extend the teacher training course to three years. I was at the teachers' congress when the Minister made this timely announcement. It was well received by my colleagues. By making that announcement he endeared himself to many members of the national school teaching profession. A three-year course has been sought for some time. It will help to bring parity of qualification to all branches of the teaching profession. There has been trouble in regard to salary and otherwise for years because of the two-year course.

The Minister mentions that the intake for national teaching is greater than ever. If the standard of entrance is lowered the new entrants will be of a lower calibre. At present there are many lucrative opportunities available to pupils which were not available some years ago. Third-level education was not available. A call to national training was considered something no one would reject at that time except those who were able to pay for university training themselves. There is a difficulty here. It might be well to examine, not in a derogatory way but for our own information, the placing in the leaving certificate of the last student who was accepted into training this year and the placing in the leaving certificate of the last student who was accepted into training, say, ten years ago.

The Minister mentioned the blank year there will be because of the extension of teacher training to three years. This was a wise decision and we will not strive to make political capital out of the fact that we will lose a year's teachers coming out. I mentioned this in a parliamentary question so that the Minister would be aware of the problem.

Deputy Haughey some time ago raised a problem concerning teacher training. It relates to the acceptance of girls into training without a music qualification. What happens still to a girl who fails singing at the Easter orals? All her other honours are useless. I got the impression the Minister was hoping to change that. In this scientific age, with the more mechanical means of voice reproduction, it is time to do away with this qualification which is sought from girls. We have fewer two-teacher schools now and the usual pattern was a man principal and a girl assistant. In the bigger schools there would be likely to be some member of the staff who would be in a position to deal with the teaching of music. In these days of "women's lib" the Minister should endeavour to keep the ladies happy and not demand a qualification of women which is not demanded of men. It could be that the next Minister for Education would be a woman. Seeing that Deputy Hogan O'Higgins took her place so early in this debate that is quite possible. She might, on her entry into this important ministry, decide that dancing or some other such accomplishment was necessary for men teachers. That would close the door on yours truly and many others. If the music qualification was removed it would bring into training some few more girls who have the other qualifications and who are denied the opportunity now. I hope the Minister will consider that.

The Minister devoted considerable time to pupil guidance. It is sorely needed. This is only in its infancy but the position is far from satisfactory. The ideal I would expect would be that we would have in each centre —I do not mean in each school— one expert in pupil guidance who would deal with 500 or 600 pupils and deal solely with that. This is vital. At present, with the new structures, a great case can be made for career guidance people. We must ensure that we have competent people to assess pupils, advise them, ensure that they are fitted for their jobs, that their talents are equal to their expectations and that we will have fewer square pegs in round holes.

We are lucky in this respect in our area. The vocational committee have one of the men who qualified early on—and an excellent man he is. I find it hard to accept that, because of the present structures we have, his professional services are only available to pupils in the vocational school each day, while after hours he can deal with pupils in the secondary school. However, that is a private agreement. The ideal would be that all post-primary education in the area would have the benefit of the advice of a competent and properly trained career guidance man.

I was interested in the remarks concerning disadvantaged pupils. I read the INTO's report. I am glad to see that the Minister has accepted it, as I have accepted it. It is something that we in rural constituencies are not so aware of but it is vitally important that special concessions should be made in certain environments. If this is not done, we will produce the disadvantaged pupils of today, who in turn will become the parents of tomorrow and help to perpetuate this type of disadvantaged pupil. The home attitude, the attitude of parents is very important. We must make sacrifices for this in order to reduce the size of classes, to allow more individual attention to be given, to make the schools more attractive. Anything we can do to bridge this gap we should do it now and ensure that this situation will not be perpetuated in the future.

Any contact I have had up to now with the Parliamentary Secretary regarding school transport has been very amicable. He appears to be interested in his Department. Unlike Deputies opposite, who spoke about the deficiencies of the school transport system I think we are far too critical of this facility. We should appreciate what we have, rather than bemoan what we have not. Those of us who trudged or went on bicycles to school did not appreciate the hardship we suffered, but nowadays everybody seems to feel they are entitled to free transport. Demands are being made on it that are far beyond the need it was originally intended to fill. One area in which I believe transport should be provided from door to door is in the case of pupils of schools for mentally handicapped. I had an experience of two pupils in a certain village a little bit off the beaten track. Provision had to be made to carry them a certain distance to meet the bus in the morning and to go back in the evening. The Parliamentary Secretary agreed to reroute the bus and I thank him for that.

There is a nice new school in course of construction on the Curragh plain to replace St Anne's Special School in Droichead Nua. We have a big investment in this type of school and it is essential that we should not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. The pupils attending that school are not able to look after themselves to make their way along busy streets or wait at dangerous corners for a bus. It is important that we should bend over backwards to provide transport for them.

From the west Wicklow and Kildare border we have pupils attending Big Stone National School, Baltinglass. The bus does two runs in the morning and there is a certain amount of room for fare-paying passengers. I think it has room for 14 fare-paying passengers. More pupils availed of this than the bus could cater for, but as far as I know nobody "cribbed" about the overcrowding on the bus. There were 22 fare-paying passengers being carried and their fares were accepted for this term by CIE. Recently somebody who was more interested in figures than in the welfare of the pupils examined the situation and decided that seven of those 22 could not now be carried. Any day their fares will be refunded to them.

While I know that, strictly speaking, there is no obligation on the Department to carry these people, they have got a facility and it is much harder to remove a facility from them than not to provide it in the beginning. The parents of the children involved were with me the other night and they told me that the contractor who supplies the bus has a larger bus at his disposal which could easily carry them. They are quite prepared to meet the increased cost of this bus and they assured me that they would do so. The Minister should step in immediately. Here are parents who are willing to subsidise CIE against a possible loss on a service and it would be a nice gesture if CIE accepted this subsidisation. They would gain a certain amount of currency as a result rather than depriving children. Possibly it would save us that little extra amount of subsidisation which will arise as an annual chestnut later on. The area is Big Stone National School near Baltinglass.

With regard to the opening of Dún Chaoin national school, I notice that the Minister gave a full page of his Estimate speech referring to it. My reaction is that methinks the Minister doth protest too much if he finds it necessary to devote so much of his time to explaining the reason and the need for the re-opening of that school. If one were to divide the number of lines in the Minister's speech devoted to Dún Chaoin by the number of pupils attending the school one would get the idea that, as far as publicity goes this school and its pupils are very near and dear to the hearts of a Dublin based Minister and his Meath based junior colleague who are so very deeply interested in their welfare.

Chím go n-aontaíonn an tAire le polasaí Fhianna Fáil maidir le dúnadh na gnáth scoileanna aon oide nó dhá oide ach bí cinnte de go ndúirt sé nó go ndúirt duine éigin leis go gcaithfí athrú éigin a dhéanamh i gcás Dhún Chaoin agus b'fhéidir go bhfuair sé spreagadh ó dhaoine tábhachtacha eile chun an scoil seo a oscailt. De réir líon na ndaltaí ní raibh an ceart aige an scoil a oscailt. Sin é mo thuairim féin agus chím gur mhol sé do na daltaí i mBaile Mhunna seal a chaitheamh i nDún Chaoin le déanaí. "Twinning" nó b'fhéidir cúplaíocht a bhí i gceist aige. Má dheineann buachaillí Bhaile Mhunna mar a mhol an tAire caithfimid bheith an-chúramach nó beidh blas Bhaile Átha Cliath ar Ghaeilge ghlan Chiarraí sar i bhfad. Chím go bhfuil Aire na Gaeltachta ar aon fhocal leis an Aire Oideachais ag spreagadh daoine go bhfuil suim acu sa Ghaelthacht a laetha saoire a chaitheamh sa Ghaeltacht. Le cúnamh Dé, éireoidh linn an Ghaeilge a chur in úsáid. Tá a fhios agam gur mian leis an Aire go mbainfidh chuile dhuine go bhfuil Gaeilge aige úsáid aisti.

Tá a fhios ag Aire na Gaeltachta go fhios ag Aire na Gaeltachta go ndearna Fianna Fáil a ndícheall ar son na Gaeltachta agus níor cheil Aire na Gaeltachta é sin. Nuair a bheidh bhur ré caithe agaibh sna binnsí sin thall agus nuair a fhilleann sibh go dtí na binsí seo, tá súil agam go mbeidh an rud céanna le rá agaibhse.

I seem to be dealing in complaints all the time but I explained at the beginning that, if I had anything complimentary to relate, I probably would not say it. I have an item regarding school books and to me it conveys again an alignment in some Department or other, a perpetuation of the academic bias and the reason for that academic bias in our educational system. We all agree that for far too long academic qualifications were at a premium and that technological knowledge and craftsmanship were somewhat demoted. We are agreed that greater emphasis should be placed on them.

With regard to free school books, vocational schools do not fare at all as well as other post primary schools. I am told that in the allocation of finance to secondary schools last year money was left over and not availed of. When I took the trouble of ringing the Department of Education this year to ask how money for school books was allocated I was told that in secondary schools half the amount that was given out last year was sent on as a kitty to work from and that, when the final account was made up and presented to the Department, if it was not outlandish—that was the word used by the lady in the office—it was met in full.

My experience in vocational schools in Kildare is that only half the amount of money which is needed is provided. Something needs to be done. I know what I am talking about. I have myself backed each way. I have two children attending a secondary school and two children attending a vocational school and, for good measure, I have one child attending a regional school. I know about school books and I know the £1 which is needed very regularly.

I should like to give an example. In the vocational school in Droichead Nua, where there is no shortage of employment and lots of factories which are doing well, thank God, £500 was set aside in the budget by the CEO. This would have worked out at a little over £2 per pupil. As can be expected it was considered, and rightly so, that some of the pupils were well able to provide their own books. It was considered that about half the pupils needed assistance. Every needy pupil in the school was allocated £4.50 and pupils who were really in need were allocated £9.60. It is distressing to think that children of parents who hold a GMS card—and in the Eastern Health Board region only those who are really in need have that—cannot expect to get free books.

Our vocational education committee in Kildare sent a proposal to the vocational teachers congress last year that the allocation for free school books should be doubled. That was passed but nothing has been done about it since. To aggravate the position further I know that in the whole county of Kildare the vocational teacher, or the CEO, or somebody, carries the deficit from one year to the other. There is an area in which I see evidence of blatant discrimination. It is essential that something be done to remove the reason for that discrimination and, to use a hackneyed phrase which the Minister must be tired of hearing, "to cherish all the children equally".

There is discrimination against second year students at third level education for which I find it hard to make a case. I refer to students in their second year attending the regional colleges, Kevin Street and Bolton Street. It was decided by the Minister, or somebody in authority, that these students will not get scholarships. I know of five such cases in Kildare. I should like to give some examples. I know a young man who has done one year mechanical engineering in Bolton Street. He did his leaving certificate in 1970, but did not apply for the scholarship then. Another young man of 20 who is attending a technician's course in applied science at Kevin Street Technical College did not get notice from the college that he was accepted until it was too late to apply for the scholarship. He passed his examinations. His people were willing to make the sacrifice to send him there on the assumption that the scholarship would be available to him next year. He applied for the grant but was refused.

A young girl who is doing an hotel and catering supervisory course in Cathal Brugha Street was also a late applicant and was informed that she would not get a scholarship this year. These cases were all of second year students. It seems strange that if they were first year students they would have been accepted. If one of these boys had decided to go to Dublin each day to work in the building industry and earned £30 a week, which he could do, and accumulated £1,500 in a year and then applied to the Department of Education this year as a first year student he would have got the scholarship. But because his parents made the sacrifice and he went to school straightaway, he is now denied a scholarship.

The framing of the scholarship course in Kildare would not have excluded him. If the Department's attitude is to be perpetuated, and I hope it will not, a student enrolling at his own expense and whose parents can afford to put him through third level education for the first year but whose family conditions deteriorate, possibly because of a death, could not then be considered for a scholarship. This will also apply to grants. I should like to emphasise that this is a scholarship scheme as distinct from a grant, a competition to allow different students each year to compete for scholarships. What I am asking would allow students in a vintage year—I assume 1972 may have been a vintage year—who did not get a scholarship to compete for a scholarship in 1973. The scholarship is based mainly on the fact that an applicant is suitable. The Department's attitude is that an interview is needed each year to decide the suitability of the applicant. That would be valid only if all the applicants were entering the same course. I could understand it if three or four students applied for Science Two in Carlow Regional College. One would then be in a position to compare like with like. How could anybody, even the greatest expert in the Department, be in a position to compare an applicant for Science Two in Carlow College with somebody who is doing institutional cooking in Cathal Brugha Street? We in Kildare have decided that if the college accept a student, that is a guarantee of his suitability and there is no need for an interview. It would be very difficult to select one otherwise. This is an urgent matter which has caused parents and students a lot of pain and could change their lives. We believe that children who are awaiting their scholarships are entitled to them but are denied them by the Minister for Education.

There is not much sense in making reference to the fact that second chance education is available to pupils in a certain range when first chance education is denied these pupils. This is an example of discrimination which I would like to see removed.

There was a delay in deciding the future of vocational schools in Kildare, particularly in Droichead Nua. The vocational school there was overcrowded and had very poor facilities. It was allowed to lag for a very long time without any sense of urgency. In Athy there is a vocational school, a convent school and a Christian Brothers secondary school. The authorities are anxious to know what is the future of post-primary education in Athy. The Department have not thrown any light on the subject since a meeting was held there many moons ago. It is high time the suspense was lifted and people told what the future of education there will be. A community school would fit in well there but anything would be preferable to suspended animation. Better facilities and new buildings are required but these are still being put on the long finger. Some pre-fabs were granted grudgingly. Something concrete will need to be done soon in Athy, in fairness to a whole generation of pupils who are not getting a fair chance.

I note the Minister's wish for regionalisation and a new management structure. We feel the same about this. He mentions that the immediate reaction to the proposals when they were aired was favourable. That statement is a tribute to the integrity of the Fianna Fáil Party and our constructive criticism of these proposals. The Minister might compare this reaction to the furore created when community schools were introduced and the chivvying that went on at Question Time each day. Politicians were wavering with every breeze that blew. We had insinuations of sectarianism. We were pro the religious and then anti the religious the following week. We had far too much interdepartmental interference in schools one week and then too little interference the next week. The media played their part too in that particular episode.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 25th October, 1973.
Top
Share