Vol. 282 No. 6
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £77,328,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975, for Primary Education including National School Teachers' Superannuation, etc.
I see that for special courses for teachers there was provision of £77,000 for the year April-December, 1974 and £12,000 for 1975. What special courses are involved?
These are in-service courses, in this case for primary teachers.
Does it cover remedial as well as ordinary in-service courses?
Yes.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for the Minister for Education to be talking of his concern for remedial education when he dropped the grant from £77,000 to £12,000 a year? Why pick this matter for a drop like that?
The special courses to which the Deputy refers cover a whole gamut of in-service courses. Although he is perfectly entitled to pick on one aspect of them I think it would be wrong to attribute the whole drop to a drop in relation to remedial education. The present Government have recorded significant progress in regard to remedial education in that we quadrupled the number of courses up to this year in the period in which we are in office with a throughput of 25 teachers per annum for primary school teachers rising to 100 in the present academic year. Those teachers are still in the schools and will continue to work in the schools during the coming year. The contribution made in the form of courses last year will continue to have effect throughout the teaching career of that quadrupled number of teachers who availed of it. I should point out that the Government have doubled the number of remedial teacher posts.
I know the Parliamentary Secretary has to make the best of his brief, but in all seriousness how can he maintain that anything can be done with £12,500? How can he say there is any concern by the Minister for any of these courses when this ridiculous and insulting figure is estimated as against £77,000 for nine months last year? The thing is ridiculous. It would be better not to try to defend it.
I will be the judge of that.
The Parliamentary Secretary will be a bad judge if he continues on the lines he has been following.
I am not a bad judge at all. The position is that the teachers whom I mentioned will continue to serve in the schools. It was necessary to make certain cuts in the Department of Education Vote. They are cuts which can be and hopefully may be restored in the coming year. Nothing is permanently lost in the sense that all of these courses can be resumed next year and the teachers who availed of previous courses are still in the schools.
My personal opinion is that we should not see remedial teaching developing as a substitute for normal class teaching and that children who have problems of some description should always have to have special remedial help. The vast bulk of problems which arise in classrooms can and should be dealt with by the normal teachers, and it should only be where there are grave proven difficulties that recourse should be had to remedial teaching. This is lost sight of because the idea of a remedial teacher can be so easily quantified that one may run the risk of diverting attention from what can be done in the normal classroom for children with difficulties.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is not aware that there are such large classes, for example in this city, that it is impossible to do remedial teaching in the normal run of events—the teacher is trying to cope with 45 to 50 pupils in a class. I have a question about subhead C.5 which shows a drop from £223,600 to £67,000. In order to get some idea of what that is about, would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what "miscellaneous grants" covers?
These moneys have been reduced because under the new boards of management system a very substantial injection of funds is being given on a general basis to the managers of primary schools. I suggest the Deputy looks at subhead C.6. There is a substantial increase there. "Miscellaneous grants" would cover such things as heating and lighting and so forth. That is no longer necessary because such things are covered by the greatly augmented provision for capitation grants. The provision this year for miscellaneous grants refers to money necessary to meet outstanding commitments last year when individual schemes for heating, lighting and so forth were in operation.
Does the £67,000 refer to heating and lighting? There is a note at the end of the Vote which refers to grants for heating, cleaning and painting schools, and then we are referred back to subhead C.6. What did the £223,600 in last year's Estimate cover?
Last year's provision dealt with the matters I have referred to. This year's references are in the tabulation. There is a technical difficulty in regard to the reallocation of resources to cover subheads. I understand there is no real problem as far as money being made available is concerned.
The Minister for Education said he would pay in the first half of this year the old grant and pending and providing committees of management were set up, the rest would be paid up to £6 per head. What about this £67,000? How does it relate to the £3.2 million in the Estimate?
The £67,000 is for the matters mentioned—equipment, special education grants for Irish reading material and miscellaneous expenses and maintenance. Provision for heating and lighting this year is coming out of capitation grants towards the operating costs of national schools for which provision is made under subhead C.6 for £3.2 million.
I am still very puzzled about this difference. With regard to subhead C.6, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take the view to the Minister that many people think the £1.50 local contribution per head demand for the new committees of management is excessive. If there is to be a local contribution it should be more on the lines of 50p, if there is to be any at all.
I have noted what the Deputy has said but I think we would all agree that it is useful to have local involvement in education and this would be achieved by local contributions.
Many people are challenging this.
I will take what the Deputy has said to the Minister.
I had a question on the Order Paper yesterday and I was somewhat limited by the rules of order in pursuing it. I should like to make the point again, that having regard to the very high cost of sites nowadays in built-up areas—I have in mind particularly the area about which I asked the question, Sutton, where the cost of sites is so enormous —it is very important that the Government should face the prospect of having to pay for such sites or a substantial contribution towards them. This has not been the practice up to now, but things are getting out of hand. Though I understand the Government's economic difficulties, this is not a matter that can be postponed until things improve, because there are many areas where the provision of sites will only result in the availability of a school many years hence.
In the meantime, the population is growing and the provision of primary education is, of course, a basic essential which comes, in the order of priorities, before any other activity of the Department. I urge very strongly that further consideration be given to this problem.
I agree with what the Deputy has said. The Minister is having this matter very urgently considered but I am not in a position to say what the outcome is. I will bring the Deputy's point to the Minister's notice.
I think what the Minister said is that he has considered it but in view of financial stringency he could not do anything about it. What I am urging is that, having due regard to the financial stringency, it is not a question that can be left until the financial situation improves.
I can tell the Deputy that the various problems associated with this are being examined. They have to be examined in the light of financial circumstances. The Department are aware of the problem.
I urge that priority in this be kept in mind.
I have noted what the Deputy has said and I will bring it to the attention of the Minister.
Is the percentage salary increase to primary teachers not being paid?
I am not aware of any such proposition?
