Deputy Horgan has received permission to raise on the adjournment the subject matter of Questions Nos. 11 and 12 on today's Order Paper. Deputy Horgan has not more than 20 minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - Co-Educational Primary School.
In Questions Nos. 11 and 12 on today's Order Paper I asked the Minister for Education for a certain amount of information in relation to the proposed new primary education facilities to be provided at Knocknaheeny, Cork. In particular I asked the Minister whether he was aware that the majority of the parents in that area were in favour of a co-educational primary school for their children and if he would take steps to ensure that the parental wishes in this matter were respected. In his answer to this question, or to another one put down in the name of Deputy E. Collins, the Minister gave a certain amount of factual information which had been asked for, and failed completely to address himself to the question of whether he was aware of the educational preferences of the parents in the area and whether he would do anything to ensure that these preferences were built into the kind of school that he and the State are providing for them. I find it very strange that the Minister avoided any mention of this survey because I believe that the evidence upon the basis of which I framed my questions was made available to him in his Department and that copies of the survey and of the relevant findings from the survey were available for his perusal if he had chosen to take them into account.
In order to explain the background to the situation I had better say something about the area itself. Knocknaheeny is a new housing area in Cork with a very high proportion of local authority housing. They have an active community association and within that community association they have an education action group. They are also desperately in need of a school. When the question of a school was first mooted, members of the education action group within the community association decided to try to find out from the local community precisely what kind of school the local residents wanted. They went along with a carefully and, may I say, scientifically planned survey, designed to try to elucidate parental preferences about the kind of school. The results of this survey are extremely interesting and to the best of my knowledge have not been challenged by anybody. Approximately one house in three of all the houses in the estate were surveyed at that time and the results of their survey show that almost two-thirds, some 61 per cent of those surveyed, were in favour of a mixed, that is co-educational, school. There was no possibility of misunderstanding the very simple question that was put to the householders involved or of misunderstanding their response to it. They were quite clear in their majority decision in favour of a co-educational school.
The other questions were also of interest. One of them suggested that 90 per cent of the parents wanted a say in the running of their children's school; they already have that to some extent. The other question evoked the information that three-quarters of the parents surveyed were in favour of multi-denominational education, that is children of different religious denominations being educated together. The real point at issue here is whether the people in Knocknaheeny should have the kind of school they want, which is a co-educational school. In order to double-check the veracity of this initial survey the education action group in the association recently carried out another survey in which they surveyed a considerably larger number of houses and asked them again for their opinions about the kind of school they required. At the time they carried out the second survey there were about 650 houses in the estate in question and 500 of those householders, representing about 75 per cent of the whole area, were quite clear and unambiguous in their desire for a co-educational primary school. The other 150 were comprised of people who either could not be contacted, who were not in at the time of the survey, or declined to sign in favour of a co-educational school.
All that the people of Knocknaheeny have been told so far is that they are getting a school and they have been given to understand that the first 16-teacher unit which will be built, while it will naturally have to accommodate both boys and girls, will have accommodation separated by a corridor, some Cork equivalent of the Berlin wall no doubt, for fear that these unfortunate children between the ages of four and 12 should mix together. The people there are extremely upset and angry about the situation because they believe with some justice their very real views in this matter have not been listened to. They have certainly not been listened to by the diocesan authorities who apparently made the initial application for money to build the school. They hoped to have their plea listened to by the Minister and the Department of Education. They have sent the Minister details of the survey and they have asked him to take whatever action is open to him in order to ensure that they have a co-educational primary school.
At the very end of his reply today the Minister addressed himself to the question of whether a co-educational primary school would be built and he said that the question of whether a new school should be organised on a co-educational basis is a matter for local decision. With respect, this begs all the questions that were answered. If it is a matter for local decision, would the Minister say whose local decision is involved? Is it going to be the local decision of the parents or of the diocesan authorities who have put up the initial capital necessary to get this school built? There is a peculiar irony here because there are no local representative structures through which the parents can effectively communicate their wishes and impose them in respect of the kind of school that they are going to have. Of course, there is not even a school management board because this school will be built and operated before the school management board is constituted. All the decisions will have been taken in advance and the parents have to face what is effectively a fait accompli. They not only have to face this fait accompli, they have to pay for it.
In his answer, the Minister gave me the information that the two schools would cost around £760,000. He declined to give me any details regarding the financing of the school buildings, but it is fairly commonly rumoured in Knocknaheeny that the Department will be paying ten-elevenths of the cost of the school buildings which indicates that the local community will be required to pay about one-eleventh. Of course, they will also be required to pay for the site. Even at this initial stage there is enough evidence to suggest that they will be asked for something upwards of £60,000 for the 16-teacher school. The parents are being asked to pay over £60,000 for a school which is not the kind of school they want and they have no effective way —because they have not got £60,000 in their pockets now and because they do not own a site—of ensuring that the school which is being built will match the needs in this regard. Not unnaturally, they have come to the Minister for Education and on their behalf I have asked the Minister for Education what he will do about it. In answer to supplementary questions the Minister said he was quite happy that the decision taken by the Department to go ahead with the building of the school was what the parents wanted. This statement is perfectly defensible, because the parents want a school urgently. However, it ignores one of the fundamental aspects, which is the kind of school they want.
The Minister said he was satisfied that the wishes of the parents and the good of education were being served by the decision taken by his Department. This is evading the issue, because the fundamental decision taken by the Department has nothing to do with whether or not the school is co-educational, but simply with whether there is to be a school there. Of course the parents want a school, and of course it is for the good of education that there should be a school; but the Minister is suppressing one of the fundamental points I am making.
The Minister said later that he had no line one way or the other as to whether the school should be co-educational or not. I said that the parents would be very disappointed that the Minister had no line on this issue. This is not to say that, if the Minister suddenly decided that all our schools should be co-educational, he should rush around the country twisting the arms of parents, management and teachers and forcing them to accept a model imposed from our district. We are saying that there is a dramatically expressed local preference for a co-educational primary school, that the structures to give effect to that local decision do not exist and in the absence of some structures of this kind the parents have come to the Minister and asked him to take action and he is apparently declining to do so.
In response to supplementary questions, the Minister finally said that the people in the area would have the education they want in accordance with their wishes and he assured me that nothing would be left undone in achieving that objective. Can the Minister really stand over that? If the Minister stands over it he will have to make sure that the school provided in Knocknaheeny will be co-educational. Will the Minister tell the House what he now proposes to do to ensure that the primary school in Knocknaheeny will be co-educational?
In the Government's election manifesto the section on education contained a preamble saying that Fianna Fáil recognised the parents as the primary and natural educators and their right to provide education in schools of their choice. If that preamble means anything today, if it is to mean anything to the parents of Knocknaheeny, the Minister will have to come down from the fence on this issue and do what needs to be done to ensure that these parental rights the manifesto talked about become something real and do not remain merely verbiage, which is too common in political statements.
I recognise that there are problems. The structure of our primary education system, despite the widening of participation by parents and teachers in recent years, is still relatively inflexible and there is some difficulty in ensuring that parental wishes are respected in many instances. Here we have a classic case in which a majority of parents, in a given geographical area to be served by a school whose provision has been decided in principle, are looking unambiguously for a certain type of school and apparently cannot get it. It seems to be the situation, that the real choice of school lies not with the parents but with the people who provide money for school sites and for a portion of the building costs. The money for school sites and for a portion of the building costs, is the money of the people, of the parents, and the organisation concerned are basically channels through which that money is brought from the purse and used to help construct the schools. The system is not working in such a way as to deliver the school of their choice to the parents of that city.
One could make an entirely different argument, a theoretical argument, about the issue. One could express one's astonishment that in 1979 it should be thought inappropriate for small boys and girls in the county and city of Cork to be educated together. That argument has already been resolved by the parents; they want their children to be educated together. The initial proposal for a school to serve their area comes from an organisation which apparently does not want to see the children educated together and the people are now looking to the Minister to fill the gap, to take whatever powers are necessary to ensure that their wishes are respected. In the light of the year we are living in, in the light of the Fianna Fáil manifesto and in the light of the Irish Constitution, it is surely not too much to ask.
I welcome the opportunity to clarify the statement I made today in reply to Questions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 on today's Order Paper.
I got an application for a building grant for new school accommodation at Knocknaheeny, Cork, on 11 August 1977. Early in 1977, before I took office, my inspector had been in the area appraising the growing suburb and coming to conclusions about what schools would be needed in the future, in so far as that could be done in a developing situation. Approval in principle was given on 25 October 1977 for the provision of two 16-classroom schools. The accommodation will be provided initially in one 16-classroom building, and the additional accommodation will be provided later as the area develops. Both schools will be located on the same site in the townland of Hollyhill.
The nub of the question as outlined by Deputy Horgan is about internal organisation, as to whether they should be organised on a single sex or on a co-educational basis. That is, as I stated to-day, a matter not for the Department but for local decision. So far as my Department are concerned if the parents decide that they want a co-educational school in the area, then it will be a co-educational school. Either form of organisation is acceptable to my Department. Deputy Horgan stated that the parents had no way of communicating their views. I find it very hard to accept that from a man who claims he knows their views and that he is expressing their views in this House. There seems to be a lack of logic somewhere in that.
As Deputy Horgan stated at the outset of his speech, a school is desperately needed in the area. It was that I was seized with rather than with anything else. I took steps to see that planning got under way for a school. I stress again that how the school is organised internally must be resolved locally. Any assistance my Department can give to the local interests in their efforts to resolve any differences that may have arisen will be readily forthcoming. I think Deputy Horgan implied that it would not be forthcoming; I say it will be. It is desirable that this matter be settled quickly as planning of the first of the new schools, the 16-classroom school that I mentioned, is going ahead. The accommodation will be required in the near future and it is important that there should be no avoidable delay in providing it.
In any event there will be only one school building initially and it will be necessary to accommodate both boys and girls in that building. Deputy Horgan referred to that. All that seems to be at issue is whether the school should be organised in such a way that there will be separate classes for boys and girls or mixed classes of both boys and girls. Getting a modicum of goodwill it should be possible to resolve that issue locally, speedily. Personally, I would prefer co-educational organisation. What is required is that the local people come together and make their wishes known in a clear, unequivocal way. A group wrote to me about objections to planning applications. I thought it a rather naïve letter because everybody knows that the Minister for Education has no function in regard to planning and the internal organisation of the school has nothing to do with the planning authority under the auspices of the Minister for the Environment. Internal organisation is a matter to be decided at local level and I hope it will be so decided.
In regard to Deputy Horgan's statement that I did not give any information about the financing of the school, I did in fact state that the two schools would cost £760,000, a substantial investment in the area. I am sure that it will provide primary education of a very high standard. Without being accused of being chauvinistic, I think we can say that, both from the point of view of qualifications of teachers and the physical standards of our schools, we have something to be proud of.
Deputy Horgan said that 90 per cent of the people wanted a say in the running of the schools. I think the efforts made over the past few years—I do not claim any credit for them because they had got under way before my time—to involve parents in the management of schools are creditable and have made progress, which I hope will go still further. There has been a deepening of interest of parents in regard to the running of schools. I trust that interest spreads and deepens because in some cases it is not easy to interest people in the actual schools.
Finally, I want to say what I have already repeated twice or three times that in the Department of Education we have not any particular line to follow on whether schools should be co-educational or cater for boys and girls separately. The resources of the Department are available where difficulty has arisen and we are prepared to make those resources available to the people in that area so that they can get the best possible primary education for their children.
Will the Minister receive a deputation from the community association on this matter?
I could receive a deputation from the parents' representatives in the area.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 February 1979.