Before I open this debate I have something very serious to raise with the Chair. On the Order Paper we got this morning there were two amendments, one in the name of the Minister for Education and the other in the name of Deputy Browne. There has been circulated to us here now, and to Members generally, a different version of what is on today's Order Paper, namely, an amendment in the name of the Minister for Education and an amendment to amendment No. 1 standing in the names of Deputy Browne and Deputy Kemmy, practically the same amendment as Deputy Browne has on today's Order Paper in his own name as an amendment to my motion. Now it is down as an amendment to amendment No. 1. This is unprecedented. I am asking for guidance from the Chair and I want to know what the position is with regard to this. There is an attempt there to undermine my resolution and the amendment to amendment No. 1 is a botch of a botch job. Is there any precedent for this? I do not believe there is. Other people, with whom I have consulted, have also indicated that there is no precedent for it. Is it in order as it is at present?
Private Members' Business. - School Enrolment Age: Motion.
The Deputy will accept that the decision to admit it to order was taken by the Ceann Comhairle and that accordingly it would not be a matter for me to question it or to comment on it. The Deputy should accept that situation and raise the matter on another occasion when it might be regarded as being more appropriate.
I have no evidence that it has been accepted by the Ceann Comhairle.
It was my understanding that the amendment to the amendment had been accepted by the Ceann Comhairle, in which circumstances the Deputy will appreciate and accept that it would not be advisable or appropriate for me to make any further comment on it.
I wish to raise two points of order. Our information, in so far as we have any on this matter, is that the Ceann Comhairle has not yet ruled on this matter. Does the amendment to amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Browne and Deputy Kemmy still stand side by side with amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Browne or is it in substitution for amendment No. 2 on the Order Paper?
The Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that I have been advised that the amendment to the amendment has been accepted and I have to take that advice.
That does not answer my question. We have on the Order Paper, in the name of Deputy Browne, amendment No. 2. On the white sheet which has been circulated to us there is an amendment to amendment No. 1 by Deputy Browne and Deputy Kemmy. Are both of these amendments before us?
My understanding is that they are not, but that the amendment to the amendment is correctly before us.
Is amendment No. 2 on the Order Paper also correctly before us?
I understand it is not.
With all due respect, I do not think understandings are good enough in this matter. Are you ruling that amendment No. 2, as it was on the Order Paper this morning, is no longer before us? If so, has it been withdrawn by permission of the House or what is its status at present? What status has the White Paper which is now circulating?
Deputy Haughey will appreciate that I am ruling in accordance with the advice which has been given to me, which is that the amendment to the amendment in the names of Deputy Browne and Deputy Kemmy is correctly before the House and, accordingly, it should be accepted that the original amendment has been withdrawn.
It is not possible to withdraw an amendment without the permission of the House.
I am sure Deputy Haughey appreciates my position. My understanding is that the amendment to the amendment was to substitute for the original and that the substitution had been accepted.
With due deference, I suggest that we send for the Ceann Comhairle to straighten out this matter and to give us a definite ruling.
That shall be done, if necessary.
I confirm that I have withdrawn the amendment on the Order Paper and substituted the other amendment to amendment No. 1, on behalf of the Government.
Can we take it that Deputy Browne is not moving his amendment to the motion?
That is correct. I am not moving the amendment on the Order Paper.
That is not the point at issue. Deputy Haughey is contesting whether the amendment to the amendment is correctly before the House and whether the amendment in question could or should have been withdrawn without the permission of the House.
The Ceann Comhairle should be asked to attend the House to clear up this matter. We have had enough chicanery in this House already today.
Does Deputy Haughey accept that the original amendment had not been moved?
I know you are getting advice but I think you are badly advised. The Government amendment has not yet been moved. Therefore the question of whether Deputy Browne moves his amendment does not arise at this stage.
This amendment is a substitute for the amendment on the Order Paper.
It would have to be an amendment to my motion——
Deputy Wilson accepts that the time devoted to this matter is reducing the amount of time he will have for debate.
I am asking you to summon the Ceann Comhairle to clear up this matter because it is most unsatisfactory.
The advice which I have received now is that the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Browne has been withdrawn, that amendment No. 2 which has been circulated, admittedly at short notice, has been accepted by the Ceann Comhairle and is in order. I must accept that advice.
Is Deputy Browne entitled to withdraw amendment No. 2 without the permission of the House?
He is in order in so far as it had not been moved by him.
That has not yet arisen because the Government have not moved their amendment.
He is entitled to withdraw the original amendment.
Without the permission of the House?
Under what Standing Order?
And he may also withdraw the second amendment if he is so disposed. The permission of the House is required only if the amendment has already been moved.
All we have on this white sheet of paper before us is a statement which says "amendment to amendment No. 1". There is no suggestion that amendment to amendment No. 1, as it appears here in the names of Deputy Browne and Deputy Kemmy, is in substitution for amendment No. 2. It does not say that on this piece of paper.
I say it now.
We must deal with the Order Paper, with all due respects. I know that the Deputy and the Government are trying to play games with all of us——
The Deputy is asking for clarification. Well, he will get it.
Deputy Browne has already indicated that it is not his intention to move amendment No. 2 on the Order Paper.
With due respect, the Chair suggested a moment ago that amendment to amendment No. 1 now before the House is in substitution for amendment No. 2. That is what the Chair suggested.
I suggested that the amendment on the piece of white paper which the Deputy has in front of him is the amendment which is correctly before the House.
The Chair said a moment ago that it is in substitution for amendment No. 2. It does not say that on this piece of paper.
If I used the word "substitution" I was technically in error. The point I make is that it is correctly before the House.
I submit to the Chair, with all due deference, that this piece of white paper before us is totally out of order and represents a gross misuse of the procedures of this House and is an attempt by the Independent Deputies, Browne and Kemmy and the Government to wiggle their way out of the difficulty.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
It is an unprecedented abuse of the privileges and procedures of this House, and they know it is.
Deputy Wilson to proceed.
I move motion No. 23:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Education to withdraw circular 24/81 and to allow Boards of Management to admit pupils to National Schools in accordance with the regulations obtaining up to 30th September 1981.
Firstly, I want to let the House know what Circular 24 of 1981 is.
For the purposes of enabling better organisation of classes
—and that, mind you, is the classic introduction—
to be affected in national schools the Minister for Education has made the following amendment to Rule 64, which governs the enrolment of pupils:
(i) delete existing section (1);
(ii) substitute the following as section (1):
"Pupils who have not yet reached their fifth birthday may be enrolled only in accordance with the following provisions:
(i) pupils may be enrolled, with effect from the previous 1 January, during the course of the week commencing with the second Monday in January, if they have attained their fourth birthday not later than the previous 1 July:
—That is a contorted piece of prose—
(ii) pupils may be enrolled, with effect from the following 1 July, during the course of the week ending with the last Friday in June, if they have attained their fourth birthday not later than the previous 1 January."
This amendment will have effect from 1 October 1981.
That is Circular 24 of 1981, which is the subject matter of this motion.
The position before 30 September 1981, before Circular 24 of 1981 was issued, was that a child who had reached the age of four years could be enrolled in a national school. The startling result of this circular is that a child of four, born on 2 July, may not be enrolled in a national school until the following 1 July and will not be admitted to the school until 1 September. A child whose fourth birthday is 2 January will have to await enrolment in a national school until the following 1 January. These are facts so stunning that the whole country is up in arms about them. Emerging from this circular, they were sprung on the public at the end of the school holidays without warning and without consultation with anybody. One of the most startling aspects of the issue of the circular has been that the managerial boards were not consulted, nor were the teachers, nor the parent's groupings. There was no consultation whatsoever. It was simply a ukase coming from the Minister — flat, let it be so, let this be done — a ukase that would do credit to the originator of the ukase, the Tsar of Russia. It has been commented on very adversely by everybody in the educational world, that the Minister has simply chosen to crack his fingers at all who have an interest in the educational scene and not consult them in any way.
Circular 24 of 1981 is only one example — there are many others — of the lack of consultation and of trust in those who are involved in the educational scene with whom we are concerned here tonight. The Minister is into confrontation policies. If there is any one area of national life, social or economic, where confrontation is dangerous and non-productive, it is in education. Education and learning will not, and cannot, flourish in a situation where there is conflict between the Department of Education and the teachers, conflict between the teachers and the officials, conflict in any way interfering with the smooth running of the school and the educational process.
We are getting used to it in other spheres as well, but one of the typical Coalition Government ploys is, somehow or other, to involve the previous Government. I want to read for the House the paragraph at the end of the introduction to the White Paper, because it has been quoted by the Minister to support him in the action which he has taken. In big print, bigger than the print of the rest of the paragraph, the following words can be read:
... such indication of Government thinking need not at all inhibit wide ranging discussion since it is nowise intended that the proposals of this White Paper be regarded as rigid or inflexible.
In that paragraph are the seeds of the type of consultation which is necessary wherever major changes are to be made in the organisation of schools or in education generally. This consultation did not take place. The present Minister did not think it worth his while to take into his confidence the professionals in education, to have discussions with them or to come to a consensus on this very important matter.
That brings me to the point which the Minister has made in trying to use Fianna Fáil as a shield when the arrows began to fly at him — and, mind you, over the past few weeks the arrows have been flying, and deservedly so. He has claimed that Fianna Fáil policy, as outlined in the White Paper of December 1980, had shown that we intended raising the school entry age for national schools. This is a lie. We did not so intend. Apart from the invitation which I have already mentioned to wide ranging discussion and the abduring of rigid and inflexible proposals, the White Paper said, at paragraph 4(20):
Attendance at school is compulsory in this country from the age of six to fifteen. Ireland is, however, virtually unique among European countries in that it makes provision in public primary schools for children from the age of four. In the normal course of events, children receive their primary education in a single primary school or in a group of such schools on a single site. At present a child may be enrolled in school as soon as it reaches four years of age.
The following is the part of the paragraph which I want to read to the House very carefully:
Enrolments, taking place as they do at different times during the school year, can give rise to difficulties in the organisation of classes and in the provision of an adequate programme for such pupils at junior level. In future first enrolment of pupils under the age of five will be permitted only on two dates each year, namely the first day of the school year and the first school day ...after they have reached their fourth birthday.
"The first school day in January".
"The first school day in January after thay have reached their fourth birthday". The fact of the matter is that the context in which that was written was of school organisation. Indeed, the Minister has tried to capture that one for himself also. What about the pupils I mentioned a moment ago? I hasten to add that discussion and consultation was to follow upon that with the relevant managerial and teaching bodies and, in fact, had taken place and both bodies were quite satisfied with the tenor and trend of those discussions up to the end of May 1981. Under the White Paper suggestion the child born on July 2 would be enrolled on the first day of the school year following, no delay at all. In fact, if the child was born on 31 August the child could be enrolled on 1 September. This the Minister failed to say when he was talking about what was in the White Paper. Of course, the emphasis there was on school organisation, the organisation of classes and the provision of an adequate programme — the words used in the White Paper for junior level pupils.
A totally different emphasis from this is in circular 24/81. It is blatantly and bloodily designed to save money at the expense of the children of this country and that is the only motivation, the only purpose of 24/81. It does not have anything to do with sound educational theory or practice; it does not have anything to do with making a better education available but it has everything to do with saving money and the Minister for Education was sold a pup by the Department of Finance. This motion is calling on Friedman to go back to Chicago where he belongs, we will not have him on our education scene in Ireland. The motion also calls on the Minister for Education to stand up to the Minister for Finance and his mandarins in the Department of Finance and reject suggestions that are deleterious to the Irish educational process. A pathetic effort was made to justify the changes on educational grounds. No educationalist or administrator in the Department of Education advocated this change on educational or any other grounds. This was pushed on a non-suspecting Minister as soon as he took office, before he could settle down, before he could see through it by the Minister for Finance, heavily nudged panjandrums in order to save money and for no other purpose.
I should like to read for the House an extract from a speech I made on the budget in July last, as reported in the Official Report, volume 329, column 1023. The Minister for Finance had said that substantial savings had to be made in Education, Environment and Defence. That set the alarm bells ringing, as the House may remember, and I was speculating as to where the Minister for Finance thought he might make these savings in Education. It drew a response from all the teachers unions at that time, the INTO, the TUI, the ASTI and the Irish Federation of University Teachers. They were amazed. They were shocked to think that we had a Minister for Finance who thought so little about the educational scene that he felt he could make serious cuts in the budget which had been prepared by the outgoing Government. I asked the question:
Where are those substantial savings to be made which caused such alarm to parent associations and teachers unions since the Minister made his statement. There is no room for such savings, as I indicated. There are rumours of a pay freeze and that the Minister for Education is being pressed to raise the age of entry to primary schools and save 1,700 teaching posts. I hope the Minister will give a commitment that he will not entertain such a suggestion.
The Minister, however, kept away from that budget debate and we did not get that commitment. The House, and the country, now know that what I had foreseen at that time was in danger of happening. For that reason I appeal to Members, no matter what party they are in, or support, to give support to my motion and have circular 24/81 thrown out.
In that budget debate I went on to list other areas where cuts might be made. If it happened in case one there was no guarantee that they would not go on on capitation grants, on the distance learning project, on school transport and on the charge for post primary education. They all got into the news media and there is no smoke without fire. At that time I put the House on notice that there was this danger and, mo léan géar, the danger materialised and the Minister put this circular 24/81 into circulation.
I have said that no educationalist or administrator in the Department of Education could possibly have thought this up. I spent four years there and I knew their minds. It just could not come and we know what the views of the Minister for Finance were in the budget. We know exactly where this came from. Of course, the Minister for Education has to take responsibility for what has happened but he should remember that when he puts his knees under the Cabinet table he is Education and he must defend Education, even to the point of resigning, if the Minister for Finance pushes on him theories, policies or money cuts he does not agree with. The considered view of the Department of Education on this whole matter was indicated to me when in office. It was that the raising of the age of entry would have implications for the school curriculum, school organisation, teacher employment, supply of teachers, school accommodation, special education for handicapped and socially deprived pupils and might lead to calls for a raising of the school leaving age. That initial statement, in summary, means that the primary school curriculum which had gained the approval and admiration of many educators outside Ireland, as well as at home, was on a four module, two years to each module, basis. It was organised in that way. The basic philosophy underlying the curriculum takes account of the natural stages of the development of the child. The content of each of the aforementioned modules has been fixed so as to reflect this philosophy and to ensure logical sequential learning in keeping with these stages.
The Department of Education's considered opinion was that the eight year minimum period was required for the coverage of the full programme in order to achieve the educational objectives of the curriculum. It is very carefully and delicately contrived. The mechanism is delicate and very well thought out. We have not been told whether it is the intention of the Minister for Education to cut the programme to seven years or to seven and a half years. A question also arises about the school leaving age because of the compulsory period of education. Many children who follow a three year course to intermediate certificate will not, if they are pushed back, have completed their course until after the school leaving age has been reached. That brings in the question of raising the school leaving age and also the question of minimum age of employment and, of course, legislation is needed in relation to both of those.
The change in entry age would mean that in a particular year many schools would find themselves with additional staff. The staff there would be put on the panel and would from a blockage for those who are at present in the colleges of education. As the House is aware, the system is that a teacher who is a supernumerary to a staff is put on a panel and has to take a position within a ratio of 28 miles of the school in which he or she has already been teaching. There are 1,700 teaching posts on the basis of children starting in primary school at the age of six. The INTO is vitally concerned in this whole matter and they have circulated the Members of this House with their own findings in this regard on the basis of the change that has been made. The Minister has the figures before him. I will refer later on to a very careful survey made by that organisation with regard to teacher employment.
There are also implications for teacher supply. The output of our colleges has been about 1,000 per annum for some time and, as the House knows, these were being used to replace those who retired and to improve the pupil-teacher ratio. Fianna Fáil have an excellent record in that regard, having improved the pupil-teacher ratio and improved the schedules for employment in primary schools every year from 1977 to 1981 inclusive. I want to emphasise the word "inclusive" because, in the piratical way that members of this Government have, they are arrogating to themselves the credit for doing what the previous Government had already done. I myself approved of the employment of 300 extra teachers for improving the pupil-teacher ratio and the changing of the schedules. In fact this had Government approval in the previous administration.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I want to refer to the considered views of the Department of Education. I want to emphasise that I am not talking about the considered views of the Department of Finance because I know what they are vis-à-vis education. I know what Minister Bruton intends to do. He intends to cut and pare and take off money at the expense of the children of this country and I hope that the House will realise that if they support my motion they are in fact supporting Minister Boland in the Government. They will let him know and he will let the Government know and he will let the Minister for Finance know that they cannot monkey about with the finances of education to the detriment of the pupils and students of this country.
The implications for the physically and mentally handicapped are also very serious. If they do not start school until they are five years of age the effect of the handicap is going to be increased and parents are going to have the burden of having them at home for one or two more years. In certain handicaps such as Downe's Syndrome the early years are all-important. As the Ceann Comhairle himself will know, in that disease the growth rate of the brain slows up as the child gets older. I refer to the Ceann Comhairle's medical expertise. It must be remembered that education for handicapped children includes a large element of training in social living skills. Indeed that is highly relevant to the ordinary child and it is highly relevant in the field of the curriculum that was laid down for the four year old and the five year old in the new curriculum of 1971. It must be remembered that education for handicapped children includes a large element of training in social and living skills as distinct from the normal academic learning and these include personal care and hygiene, social interaction skills and training in self-help and independence. The sooner they are commenced the better.
In the case of children living in disadvantaged areas one of the reasons for backwardness at school is the lack of stimulation in the home, especially in the earlier years. I know there are Deputies on all sides of the House who are particularly concerned with this problem of the socially disadvantaged. I am appealing to all of those, whatever their party, to keep this in mind when voting on this motion, because if those children are not admitted at four years of age and there is no stimulation or very little stimulation in their background they are going to suffer educational disadvantage for the rest of their lives. This is very important and should be kept in mind by anybody with the interests of those children at heart. There are Deputies in this House, not all of them from my own party, who will realise that bending the rules as far as possible to supply extra teachers in such areas was part of my way of life in the Department of Education and that was at a time when four year olds were admitted and there was not the problem that has arisen as a result of this circular.
The question of kindergarten schools and pre-schools has been raised. Most European countries have pre-schools, a structured type of pre-school with heavy emphasis on cognitive skills. But there are others which have more of a play school idea of learning through play and so on. Both ideas are incorporated in the curriculum in use for infants in our schools. When pressed in this House — as I often was — to start specific pre-schools, I always maintained that we were unique in that we admitted children at four years of age and that those children were put under the charge of trained teachers, of people with professional qualifications, with dedication, who very often specialised in infant teaching in the training colleges and the colleges of education and that this was far better than what was available in many European countries. I still maintain that and will argue it with anybody. In fact some of the countries in Europe that have a separate pre-school system are thinking of changing over to a unified system along the model that we have had here until the icy fingers of the Minister for Finance, ably abetted and agreed to by the Minister for Education, were laid on the education kitty.
I am not going to go into details of the estimated savings. The Department of Finance were pushing for six years and were in fact convinced that over 1,600 teachers salaries could be saved — they were talking in the context of six year olds. I would ask Members of the House to read the document that they got from the INTO, which was the result of a survey of all the schools in the country, to get an indication of how many teachers in fact would be out of work as a result of the introduction of this circular.
Some of the newspapers — and I am reluctant to go on in a kind of partial or even sectarian basis — have emphasised the difficulties of Church of Ireland schools which in the main are small schools, particularly in rural areas, and are scattered all over the country. I do not know if the Minister for Education has backed off from circular 24/81 so far as Protestant schools are concerned. I listened to him on the radio last Sunday and he seemed to be either backing off as far as the Protestant or minority schools are concerned or he was backing off over the whole range of two-teacher schools. I taped what he said and I listened carefully and it seems to me that he seemed to be backing off on the whole range of two-teacher schools. If he is, thanks be to God. I ask him to back off the whole thing and revert to the situation of 30 September 1981.
The Deputy will appreciate he has no further time.
The Deputy has until five minutes to eight.
There is some injury time.
If the Deputy claims extra time this debate will have to be carried over until next week.
On a point of order, am I not correct in saying that Deputy Wilson started his contribution at 7 o'clock and ceased after a couple of minutes. He then asked a litany of procedural points relating to various amendments. I suggest, with respect, that his time is not just up but has expired.
As the Deputy who raised the procedural points I want to make it absolutely clear that the only reason we raised these procedural points in the House was that we could not get a ruling before we came into the House. Deputy Wilson should not be penalised for that.
Then we will have to carry the debate over until next week.
On a point of order, on what precedent does time taken by a Deputy in pursuing the alleged legality of amendments, which he obviously should have clarifed before he came into the House if he had done his preparation properly, mean that this debate is continued next week and by what precedent does it mean the Deputy now has 45 minutes in Private Members' Business. I have no recollection that it ever happened before and I ask when did it happen before.
I am making a decision now that the debate has to carry into next week. I am depriving Deputy Wilson of further time. The amendment to the amendment was received very late and it is because decisions are not being made in time as to what motions will be taken in Private Members' Time that this arises. I have to allow Deputy Wilson to continue.
On a point of order, will the Ceann Comhairle assure the arrogant young Minister of State, who accused me of wasting time, that the Ceann Comhairle's office said they would get back to me before 7 o'clock and were unable to do so.
I have made the decision now that the debate will have to carry over into next week.
I am sure Deputies in the House, especially Deputies opposite, will recall that when amendments were circulated at short notice previously and when they were objected to by the Opposition the time that was taken in debating the merits or otherwise of the late circulation of the amendments was, traditionally, never allowed to a Member and added on to the end of his time. My recollection of the Standing Orders is that, in relation to Private Members' Time, the only time a matter can carry over into the following and subsequent weeks is when a Bill is presented during Private Members' Time. A motion must be disposed of within the two days of Private Members' Time unless, by agreement, it is disposed of in a shorter time.
The Minister is now taking up time.
I have no desire to inhibit the debate in any way but the same rules should be applied to each of the parties equally in the House. The tradition is that Private Members' Time is conducted over two days and there is a vote at the conclusion of the discussion on the Wednesday. If the Ceann Comhairle's ruling is correct this can be carried over into the following week as well so there will be no problem. Perhaps by way of explanation and in support of his ruling, the Ceann Comhairle might quote the Standing Order to us.
The Ceann Comhairle can make a decision and I have made a decision now. I am giving Deputy Wilson an extra ten minutes.
Is the debate being carried over into next week?
Yes.
I was talking about the uproar in the minority schools when circular 24/81 was circulated and had sufficiently well sunk in. I quoted from Gullivers' World School Age Protest. What seems to have had a most depressing effect on parents and teachers is that Dr. Garret FitzGerald as Taoiseach mounted a campaign of friendship towards Protestants when the same Dr. FitzGerald, as the Minister for Education's supervisor, condoned a measure endangering vital Protestant interests. Will the Minister say what is the exact position of the minority and two-teacher schools?
The INTO's survey indicated a loss of 921 posts as a result of circular 24/81. This will mean confusion on the panel. It will mean 28-mile journeys for some teachers when a vacancy occurs. In a situation where travel costs are escalating as a direct result of Government action, it is no wonder the INTO are worried. As I said already, the Minister for Education, acting as the agent for the Minister for Finance, has made a savage attack on their position, has refused to have consultations with them and has interrupted a steady improvement in the education being provided in our national schools. A drop of 36 per cent from 48,065 actual for 1980-81 to an estimated 30,774 in 1982-83 is traumatic for parents, for the pupils, for the teachers and, I venture to suggest to the House, is traumatic for education in our community.
The House must not tolerate this. That is why I am appealing with all the passion I can command to people to support my motion and see to it that circular 28/81 is withdrawn, and particularly those who claim to have the interests of children from disadvantaged backgrounds and disadvantaged areas should come forward into the lobby and support this motion. As I mentioned already where the stimulus is weakest for pupils, where there are problems at home, where motivation is weak there is a school needed with skilled teachers, professionals, to stimulate the pupils and to give them at least in part in the school what they lack at home with regard to educational stimulus.
The House knows that at the moment many families send two parents out to work and with the steep rise in the cost of living and inflation the pressure for this is greater. Indeed, with the withdrawal of subsidies in a different area, on mortgages, the pressure is greater for two parents to go out to work. Consequently, in those cases, mostly through no fault of theirs, there is not enough time for the parents to spend with their children, to stimulate them, to interest them in education, something which will be, without doubt, available to people who are better off because they will understand in the period from four to five years that the stimulation is needed and they will have the money to provide the wherewithal for education playthings, and so on, for their own children.
With circular 24/81 the Minister is damaging the education of those children for all time. He should cause this circular to be withdrawn. It emanated from a highly respected Department, the Department of Finance. They have their role to play, but so have the Department of Education. The sole role of the Department of Education is to defend the educational expenditure on and the interests of our children.
Some Deputies say that if we had a proper pre-school system this would be better. I maintain that is not so. I maintain that we have the professionals. Nearly 90 per cent of the teachers are now girls, and they are supposed to have a special strength in teaching infants. Their reactions are quick also. We have the professionals and we have been using a system in the schools which is unique in Europe and is better than most of the pre-school education being provided.
Does the House think for one moment that the Minister for Education will be able to go to the Minister for Finance and get £40 million, £50 million, £60 million, £70 million or £80 million to start a new system of pre-school education? I doubt it, on the evidence we have seen so far. Why not use a system which has been proved and tried and tested? Why interfere with that system by issuing such a circular as 24/81? I mentioned the type of pre-schools before. I am pinning my faith on the professionalism of our teachers, and the particular strengths they have in that regard.
I am appealing to the Minister to have a change of heart even at this late stage. We have an enlightened curriculum which is organised in four modules of two years, the first two being concerned with infant education. Everything is there that is needed for a proper education geared to the stage of development psychologically suited to them. We have the qualified teachers who have been trained in our colleges of education. All is available. Let them at it. Withdraw this dreadful circular.
From 1977 to 1981 inclusive the P/T ratio was improved through reducing by 2,610 the number of classes with over 40 pupils. I already mentioned why I say 1981 inclusive. There is another little gimmick, a ploy by the Government about finance. I want to tell the House that the outgoing Government had costed education very accurately so far as 1981 was concerned. A 3.7 per cent increase — and we have Supplementary Estimates every year — was all that was needed. The Minister has been bragging about a 3.7 per cent increase by way of Supplementary Estimate which was already in train before the Fianna Fáil Government left office. In the last year in which the Coalition were in office, 1977, the Supplementary Estimate was as much as 4.5 per cent.
A quick word on the colleges of education. If this circular 24/81 is not withdrawn there is a bleak future for the student teachers being trained at this moment. The INTO reckon that 484 teachers will be put on the panel as a result of circular 24/81. All these will have to get positions before new graduates are employed. The scene is black and depressing. I am asking the Minister to withdraw circular 24/81. If he does, their worries will disappear and our educational scene will improve. The intake is down from 1,078 in 1980 to 900 in 1981. That is a straw in the wind, and a dangerous one.
If the Minister does not listen to the parents, let him listen to the boards of management. If he does not listen to the teachers in their organisation—and all four teachers' unions have appealed to him—perhaps he might listen to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who have roundly condemned circular 24/81. Being a Dublin man perhaps he might listen to Dublin Corporation. Perhaps he might listen to the minority religions. Perhaps, in the secrecy of the cavernous interior of the Department of Education in Marlboro' Street he might listen to his advisers off the record. He should be fully convinced that the local councils, Dublin Corporation, the ICTU, the parents, the unions, and so on, are right, that 24/81 is a nefarious document and withdraw it.
There should be no more interruptions from the Public Gallery.
I take it that I will be afforded injury time for that spontaneous applause.
The Minister of State is in possession.
I move amendment No.1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"welcomes the measures taken by the Minister for Education for an improvement in the organisation of classes in National Schools by way of the arrangements for the enrolment of pupils under five years of age and the employment of 300 additional primary school teachers from the beginning of the present school year thereby reducing the pupil/teacher ratio to the most favourable level ever in the history of the State."
We listened attentively to what Deputy Wilson said over the past hour. The central issue was barely touched upon. That central issue is the welfare of the children — and it is the one to which I intend to devote my remarks — and not other peripheral issues, no matter how important they may be, and no matter how sustained the lobby may be for consideration of such issues. The welfare of the children, and particularly the young children, should be the kernel of our concern in this area.
Perhaps I could be listened to with reasonable courtesy. We did not interrupt. I suggest with respect that, in the welter of emotion and debate which has surrounded this whole issue, far too little attention has been paid to the educational well-being of young children. The point has been made that the children who will be disbarred, as it were, would benefit from a more highly developed pre-school system. The Government agree with that.
I have to hand today a document from the Irish Pre-School Playgroups Association in which the Government are asked to give more attention and more resources to this area. In a letter dated 2 November 1981 they say:
Other countries do have higher school starting ages than ours, and there is much to be said educationally for starting formal school later than four. But it is vital to realise that these are countries where pre-schooling is freely available to every child.
This is not the case in Ireland.
The Government agree that everything is not ideal in the area of pre-school facilities. They are undertaking specific commitments which the Minister will outline in detail tomorrow night but which can be summarised as being a composite, comprehensive set of proposals which will insist on the mandatory regulation of the present completely ad hoc and arbitrary arangements for pre-schooling, the grant-aiding of pre-schools in areas of disadvantage and deprivation. I consider it deeply offensive for any member of the Opposition to suggest that this Government would be less than totally concerned and committed to such areas of disadvantage or deprivation. This was, is, and will be until such time as the aims of our party are achieved, the party of the just society. Despite the jeers and jibes, we will not sacrifice those principles. We believe in them. Fianna Fáil got their chance to do something in the past four years. The Government should be given that chance now.
The approach to pre-schools will include the setting of at least minimal criteria for the establishment of such schools. We must admit that not all is satisfactory in that area but there will be progress and the commitments are quite specific. In that context it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to adhere to their proposals to bring about the adjustments they have suggested and which are referred to in the circular which is the kernel of the debate here.
I am a little perturbed that too little attention has been given to the educational well-being of the children with perhaps an overemphasis on other very understandable concerns such as the question of jobs for teachers. I am not new to the classroom myself and I share the concern of those who may fear their jobs are in jeopardy. There is no reason for anyone to believe that somehow we would sacrifice teachers or wish in any way to disenfranchise or disemploy them. That is not our intention. I regret also the tone of confrontation that has emerged, particularly from a tradition of loyalty and service to young children which is the symbol of the teacher organisations. In the context of this discussion it is not inappropriate to pay full credit and to give full respect for the many decades of loyal service to children.
The most fundamental question raised by the motion we are discussing this evening is not how many teachers go on the panel. The panel regulations are subject to administrative change and no later than last July a change in the schedules for the appointment and retention of teaching posts meant that a substantial number of teachers who might otherwise have gone on the panel were spared this inconvenience. It is an important issue but not the central one. Nor is the central issue the employment prospects of graduates of colleges of education. We must deal sensibly with fears and anxieties but there are people who would say that those graduates have to some extent been more fortunate than others in our society in that in times of rising unemployment they were virtually guaranteed jobs. The situation in the future is that jobs will continue to be available arising from retirements and resignations, from growth in the numbers of pupils and from such adjustments as may be feasible as resources become available in the teaching services to national schools. I do not suppose any Government would be satisfied as long as pupil-teacher ratios would be anything other than minimal, as long as there were teachers in need of jobs who could not be employed. This Government will make every effort to improve those circumstances. There is no point in pretending there are easy options, that any Government or party have a magic wand. We are endeavouring in a genuine way to tackle the many problems that exist in education and it is on the educational criteria that I want Members of this House to make their judgment, and the audience also.
Neither is it the central issue whether four-teacher schools become three-teacher schools or three-teacher schools become two-teacher schools. I do not propose to deal with this aspect other than to say that despite the operation of amalgamation policies for a considerable number of years it is truly remarkable how many smaller schools have managed to survive unscathed. That is a good thing because the educational value of the smaller schools should not be underestimated. Many issues have obscured the kernel of this debate but we should not allow ourselves to be confused. The issue is whether the proposal is right for the children from the education point of view. Many of us in this House and many of the people in the gallery are or have been practising teachers. I suggest it is utterly unrealistic to maintain that the change as proposed will cause any damage educationally to the children so long as we underline and underscore our concern and our positive action in the area of pre-schooling.
The structure of training and institutions required for educational development cannot be regarded as in any way similar to that provided in some other countries. I do not know of any country that sees its schools as centres whose main function is one of custodial care. On occasions like this and in after-dinner speeches, we are wont to say that the primary educator is the parent. Are we suggesting, as responsible legislators, that a number of extra months in the company of one's parent at this delicate, often traumatic, stage of development could be harmful to the young children?
Dr. Spock.
What is fundamental — and I note this was not mentioned by Deputy Wilson — is whether the raising of the national school entry age will be good for the children generally or detrimental to them. No amount of pleading regarding disadvantage, handicap, special groups or any other circumstances alters this question. Special groups require special measures and the record of all governments in recent times is that they have rarely been tardy in supplying such measures of positive discrimination where the need was clearly established. I give credit to our predecessors on this point. These measures have been adopted when the special group in question has been clearly identified and when the proposed measures have been seen to be beneficial. The programme of the Government continues this tradition and is committed to positive discrimination in favour of the disadvantaged and the deprived. I suggest that if there was one central and simple factor that brought about the change of Government it was the public perception of this Government as being willing and desirous of bringing about such change in favour of people who have less.
What we are concerned about is the generality of children, the vast majority of children coming from ordinary homes, having concerned and interested parents, growing through the stages of physical, emotional, social and intellectual development of childhood and requiring at each stage the structures that support development appropriate to that stage. Implicit in the motion before us is the suggestion that the home environment or the pre-school environment is so anathema to the well-being of the young child that it is the last place one should leave a child for the extra five or six months. The only measure by which this question should be judged is whether the change in the enrolment regulations is to the benefit of the children.
I have noted the worth-while research carried out by the INTO and I see their concern expressed in their document. The Minister will deal with that matter in full tomorrow evening. I ask the teacher organisations, the INTO, the ASTI, the TUI, and others interested to do perhaps more in future, to balance with their professional concern the welfare of the children. Sometimes that may mean less rhetoric and less emphasis on jobs and promotional prospects — I admit they are not ideal in some circumstances — and more emphasis on the welfare of children.
The following are seen as the advantages arising from the change and they should be spelled out. The two fixed entry dates will allow for the better organisation of classes. Such a change was envisaged in the Fianna Fáil White Paper on Education published in December 1980. Deputy Wilson has endeavoured to throw cold water on that and to back track from it. Perhaps Deputy Wilson would ask one of his colleagues to say whether I am right in assuming that a White Paper is not some kind of nebulous, vague document for discussion but is a firm set of proposals. The White Paper published by Deputy Wilson when in Government stated only two enrolment dates, as in the present case, would be allowed in the future. The exact quotation is:
In future first enrolment of pupils under the age of five will be permitted only on two dates each year, namely the first day of the school year and the first school day in January after they have reached their fourth birthday.
Maybe the Deputy is concerned about this, but I honestly think it is a combination of hypocrisy and political chicanery to come in here and try to disown this pledge which was on the table in his name a few months ago and try to belabour this Government and this Minister as if it were our intention——
Through the Chair, I dealt with that in my speech and it was not——
I listened carefully and the Deputy made a passing reference to a preamble and tried to pawn it off——
That is not true.
Listen and take your medicine.
Order Please. The Minister of State is in possession.
The Deputy is a good man for blustering. In any new system there will be difficulties and problems and nobody is suggesting that all those engaged should not to some extent back off from the atmosphere of confrontation which has developed. It is a sad day when the young children are the centrepiece of this kind of unfortunate debacle.
It is a debacle.
Speak through the Chair, please.
In working out the details there is room for people of good sense and maturity to be able to make progress. The second advantage is seen to be the following — numbers cannot be inflated artificially by accepting pupils in the final quarter of the year, and that has happened. Thus all schools will be treated equally from now on as regards teacher supply, and who can deny that that is an advantage? Thirdly, pupils will have the opportunity of at least seven-and-a-half years in the national school. Previously there were complaints that children were moving forward in the national school without completing an adequate infants' programme. Fourthly, pupils will be over 12 years of age on entering post-primary schools. This is considered preferable to transferring too young. The INTO themselves, in one of their many worth-while submissions, previously sought an older age of transfer. Fifthly, anomalies whereby pupils could complete the sixth standard in national schools yet not be of age to go on to post-primary school will be eliminated. Sixthly, students should be more mature in age when ready to transfer to higher education.
Entry to structured schooling at the age of four is most unusual in educational circles. In the Community countries, for example Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, France and Luxembourg, all have a starting age of six. Denmark starts at seven and in the UK there is provision for those over five. Most of the authorities of these countries —and the former Minister is familiar with his European colleagues' views — express surprise at the age at which children enter structured schooling in this country.
For these and other sound reasons there is a great deal that is positive about the proposal and it is utterly lamentable, and probably irresponsible, for any former Minister for Education, who must have a specialised expertise in this area, to come here and pretend that a proposal by the Minister for Education is all black. That is irresponsible but it is precisely the tone of opposition which has been set by Fianna Fáil since the change of Government — not one scintilla of constructive criticism but black, negative, reactionary, destructive criticism.
Hit me now with the child in my arms.
The primary school is a structured community with explicit intellectual goals and presents a challenging environment to the young child. Despite the belief in and advocacy of child-centred methodology, the very ethos of a school presents difficulties for the young child. Faced with separation from parents and the familiar things of home, the sudden precipitation into an unfamiliar institutional setting surrounded by unfamiliar faces, gaining only a small fraction of the adult attention to which he was hitherto accustomed, the child can, and sometimes does, experience bewilderment and anxiety on an unimaginable scale. The teachers at national level would be the first to admit that that is a fact. The parent too can suffer from the pangs of too early separation and a troubled consciousness of what the child is experiencing.
The Minister is getting romantic.
When I was teaching there was a tradition that one listened and then one spoke.
It is regrettable that a note of derision arises when one refers to the needs of parents in this area. There is little doubt that the daily routine of a child changes abruptly when he enters school, and even though the school has a lot to offer him, it can only do so within certain constraints. Not the least of these constraints is the pressure parents exert on school practice by their expectation that the child make quick progress in areas such as reading and mathematics. The celebrated Plowden Report devoted considerable attention to this particular question and I quote:
If more flexible part or full-time entry was permitted during a child's first year at school, he or she would be ready to accept compulsory education at six.
In the same report a country inspector is quoted as follows — and he mirrors the experience of many of our own inspectors:
The present arrangement of full-time education at five is too abrupt a transition from home.
while a headmaster says:
Many children who begin their school life at five find the full school day too long and show signs of fatigue. Some others show marked signs of strain.
Can any teacher deny the truth of that?
Of course the Plowden Report was discussing children in our neighbouring island — you will note the concentration on five not on four-and-a-half and four — and can we seriously contend that our society is so much more sophisticated that it would lead to a much earlier development of childhood maturity. The Plowden Report clearly accepted the validity and overriding importance of the arguments concerned with the well-being of the child and recommended an adjustment in the age of entry to the September term following their fifth birthday for all children.
The Gittin's Report — Primary Education in Wales — which puts us more firmly in a Celtic setting, which will please Deputy Wilson, reinforces the Plowden argument with the following:
A child starting school has to adapt to many new demands. Transition from home to school should be gradual and suited to the child's individual needs. Many children of five become fatigued and irritable if they attend for the whole day and not all children can accept separation from their mothers for a whole day at first. They may be unsettled and even very anxious.
Gittin's refers to research which indicates that many young pupils are still very unsettled after three months in school. So much for the practice and experience in our neighbouring island, which, apart from our own, is the only European country where formal school starts at five.
On the European scene children are generally older still before they are admitted to the formal structured approach of primary schools proper. The entry age is usually six, although it is seven in the Scandanavian countries. In Luxembourg the formal teaching of children under six is prohibited by law. W.S. Wall in his book "Constructive Education for Children" published by UNESCO Press follows the same line of thinking and treats of the anxiety and insecurity experienced by children in their early schooling. He tells us this anxiety and insecurity manifest themselves in such ways as the breakdown of well established habits, difficulties in sleeping and eating, a reversion to bed-wetting and temper tantrums, while other children seem to become particularly vulnerable to minor ailments, such as coughs and colds. Many find the effort of adjustment to school so great that when they return home they "let go" in a bewildering bout of bad behaviour which may provoke repressive action by parents. That, sadly, is too often a feature of the social care experienced in our own society.
A factor that is sometimes overlooked in any discussion of this question is that while entry to primary schools was hitherto permitted at age four, compulsory schooling as such, in this country, did not commence until the age of six. The practice of sending very young children to school became popular for a variety of reasons — some of which might not be the most lauded — many of them reflecting a concern by parents that their children might be missing out on something. It is not that no efforts were made to convince them that children were going to school too young, although it must be acknowledged that the message was not often couched in the explicit terms that the children could well make more significant strides to emotional and social maturity in the home or in a less formally structured play setting. We should underline the value of such informality at that age. A number of our educationists have pronounced from time to time on this point and I quote from the record of the INTO Congress Report of 1977:
It appeared to be generally agreed that eleven plus is too low for transfer (to post-primary school), that children generally are too immature at that age. Pursuing that to its logical conclusion one reached the controlling fact that children are being accepted into school at too young an age. In fact a number of speakers suggested that five years should be the minimum age for acceptance, that children under that age were not ready for school and still needed the protection and security of the home.
More recently a sub-committee of the Dublin South City Branch of the INTO reporting its findings in the Spring 1981 issue of An Múinteoir Náisiúnta on the question of “From Primary to Second Level —when should transfer occur”? stated inter alia:
It is the general contention of the sub-committee that pupils in the Republic of Ireland begin formal Primary Schooling much too early.
and
Given the inability of many children in Primary Schools to cope with the curriculum it seems that they are in the main too young at all class levels.
They are not my words but the words of people experienced in primary education.
I could go on and refer to the position taken by the INTO working party set up by the previous Minister for Education and the observations of that working party, which were substantially that many pupils were too young on being promoted from infant standards to first class and that a significant number of pupils made this transition after spending an inadequate period of time in the infant standards due to enrolment late in the year in junior infants once they reached four years of age. I could also refer to the recommendations of that working party which, if implemented, would have had the effect that a pupil born in October could be six years and 11 months on promotion from infant standard, an effect which is deplored by the INTO when it is achieved by adjustment of the school entry age. I could mention, too, a return to wisdom in this connection whereby many parents voted with their children's feet and delayed sending them to school as soon as they reached four, as evidenced by a continued drop in the enrolment of four year olds over the last three years for which statistics are available, despite stability in the birth rate for the corresponding earlier periods. The evidence is not quite as damning as some would make it look.
It is not for me at this stage to rationalise the paradoxes of our society which put children through exercises in rationality in schools before we accept that they have reached the use of reason, or to comment on the double think regarding the maturity of children and their suitability for schooling when particular adult and organisational interests feel they may be discommoded or that their interests are threatened. I am convinced that sensitive, compassionate consideration and subsequent implementation and acceptance of these regulations governing the admission of pupils will ensure better class organisation and provide educational benefits for the child. The evidence is to that effect. Henceforth all children will spend a minimum of one year and two terms in the infant classes while many will spend the full two years in these classes. Their extra maturity will ensure that they are better prepared for the more formal type of education from standard one onwards. In particular, mathematics and reading should benefit and the basic concepts in these areas should be much better established. Everyone will agree that there is a clear need in this area. As a consequence fewer pupils will have need for remedial instruction at a later stage in their school careers. This view is supported by the research work of Brunif and others who found that a later entry age meant fewer retarded and more advanced children. That is the experience of those who have no other concern but the well-being of children.
Current practice in school enrolment makes for two extremes. In some schools the intake for the whole year arrives on a particular date, usually in September; in other schools two or three pupils are admitted at irregular intervals through out the year. Neither practice is satisfactory. In the first case so many new pupils arrive that the teacher has not the opportunity to give any child the individual attention he or she may require at this most critical point. When new pupils constantly arrive throughout the year they may often be at a disadvantage in so far as the teacher in her enthusiasm may feel forced to proceed with the normal class work to the detriment of these individual children. The new procedures will ensure more manageable admission groups and allow better opportunities for their assessment and for the teacher to assist individual children and groups in overcoming the difficulties of adjusting to school life. That, I know, is the primary concern of the INTO. These new arrangements will also facilitate fuller and more meaningful contact with the parent. The new procedures will also lead to a more uniform system of promotion from the infant classes.
I would appeal to everybody not to be diverted from the main issue by any of the subsidiary questions and not to pretend that this is some shallow, barren, empty economic, fiscal or financial issue. That is not the question. The essence of this new enrolment procedure is that it is good for the children or, at the very least, it is a lot better than what existed heretofore. I have heard the appeal to the Minister to withdraw this new regulation, in the name of God. I suggest instead in the name of God that these children, who are not organised, who do not have a lobby here and who do not barricade the gates, should be given their childhood so that they might enjoy it in the freedom and security of their homes or in a properly structured pre-school environment and accordingly be more ready to face the challenges of school life when they enrol and be mature enough to face the challenges of adult life when they complete their schooling.
I rise to speak in favour of the motion tabled by Deputy Wilson. I speak as a teacher with many years experience in all types of national schools and as a parent whose family have passed through the national school system, thankfully without any of the traumatic effects experienced by Deputy Browne. When one looks at the amendment and the amendment to the amendment one can readily understand where the term "browned off" originated. I speak as a representative of a constituency which is a fair cross-section of urban and rural Ireland.
The overriding purpose of the motion is the good of our four year olds. We feel that the decision as to when a child should be sent to school should rest with the mother rather than the Minister. We ask the Minister to withdraw this circular. Everyone knows he made a mistake in allowing his Department to issue it. He must by now realise this but the attitude of the Minister of State indicates clearly that Fine Gael are not prepared to withdraw or repent. The wording of their amendment had the audacity to claim credit for the appointment of 300 extra teachers who were actually sanctioned by the previous Fianna Fáil Minister.
The Deputy should tell us the date.
That form of piracy is easily recognised and has been denounced already by the teachers themselves. The Minister who told us he was so keen to have this debate judged on what was good for the children very quickly got around to jobs for teachers in the Government amendment.
This decision was taken in the light of the economic facts of which the Minister for Agriculture speaks. It was decided simply to save money. The origin was in a document called Where the Money Goes in 1977 and this Government lost no time in taking action. One must be aware of the penny-pinching people in the Department of Finance who are always looking for areas where cuts can be made. The Minister of State said we should show compassion and sympathy for children but those listening to him found very little evidence of sympathy or compassion in his contribution. This bright idea will have the effect of keeping 20,000 children out of our schools each year and will relieve the Government of the task of providing places for them and the new classrooms and teachers which would be required.
The late Donogh O'Malley showed Fianna Fáil's commitment that money should not determine the extent of any pupil's education and that the opportunities available to our children should not be based merely on financial means. It is quite obvious that monetary considerations were the only ones used by the Minister in this awful move.
The Minister of State spoke of dealing with the matter with good sense and maturity. Where was the good sense or maturity in the taking of this hasty decision in mid-term when everyone was on holidays? There was no discussion with parents or teachers. It must be viewed in the context of discussions held by the previous Government with the INTO in April and May 1981. At that time there were specific proposals with the Department of Education concerning dates of enrolment but there was no indication whatsoever that the existing age of enrolment would be raised. It was never considered by the previous Government. The Minister of State should look at section 4, paragraph 23, of the White Paper from which he quoted. It indicates that no basic change was called for. This is a very basic change and shows that the "Just Society" was just an empty slogan.
Should children go to school at an early age? I have discussed this with eminent educationalists and with specialists in child psychology and they are certain that the Minister has done the wrong thing. The proposal does not bring us into line with European standards, as some socialist but not nationalist Members would lead us to believe.