The Minister for Education accepted the dictate. Last night the Minister of State at the Department of Education said we should be discussing this matter in relation to education and not refer to teachers being unemployed. Of course, our main thrust relates to the education of our children. We have also got to concern ourselves about the employment of teachers and the employment of graduates who will leave the colleges of education in the near future.
The Minister stated that we have the earliest entry age to primary schools in Europe. He suggested in a previous statement that children of four years of age are too young for a formal school setting. From the Minister's comments one would assume that immediately a child enters the national school it is involved in formal education. That is not so. The primary school curriculum introduced by me when I was Minister for Education allows for a very high degree of flexibility and informality at infant level. Already great strides have been made in the development of infant education due to the flexible and informal nature of the curriculum. To enable this worthwhile work to continue what is needed is the provision of more resources to reduce further the pupil-teacher ratio, as Deputy Wilson did on a number of occasions when he was Minister for Education, and to provide more equipment and facilities, rather than closing the door on our four-year-olds as the Minister is doing.
When faced with a deluge of criticism and protest the Minister gave a vague promise to provide another system of infant education of unknown quality. Clearly it would take years to implement and the effect would be to abolish a well regulated system that has great potential, giving the necessary finance to develop it. To reach full potential smaller classes at infant level are vital. More teachers are necessary and more equipment should be made available. If the Minister were really serious about the new system he is proposing for infants, he would have the matter researched thoroughly to see how it would fit into the Irish context. He would provide the necessary finance and facilities for such a venture and only then, and after consultation with the various groupings involved including the parents and the teachers, should he make changes. It is obvious the reason the Minister did not carry out the necessary research was that he wanted a short-term financial windfall for the Exchequer and the carrot of pre-schooling will remain a carrot for a long time to come.
Psychological research has demonstrated that the period from the time the child is born until it is five years is critical in the development of its intellectual capacity. It is not many years ago since it was thought that a child's IQ remained constant from the day of birth. This is not so, as has been proved by worldwide research and as has been admirably demonstrated by the Rutland Street project which was financed by the Department of Education and the Van Leer Foundation. By providing the necessary teachers and the necessary back-up personnel and facilities, it was shown that children from deprived backgrounds could compete with children from more favoured backgrounds. The need to give special attention to the needs of the very young is obvious, particularly to the needs of those from deprived homes. That should be done immediately, not in the far distant future.
The only provision for children of four years, which is of general application, was the infant class in the primary school and this is now being taken away. When Deputy Wilson was Minister for Education he had the right approach. During his term of office, time after time he reduced class sizes thereby creating the conditions where the curriculum for infants could become fully effective. One would have thought that the Minister, rather than raising the entry age to primary schools — incidentally, this will increase class sizes in many schools — would have reduced the number of pupils in infant classes. If he had done this he would have improved on the provision that existed already in the area of child education. Instead of this he is proposing to abolish the provision completely. The degree of flexibility and informality at infant level in primary schools can be very considerable. The aim should be to reduce class sizes and thereby provide a better opportunity for educational development rather than closing the school doors on four-year olds while promising an unknown type of pre-school education in the far distant future. As I said earlier, from the day the child is born until it is five years of age is the critical stage in the development of its intellectual capacity. The plight of a child from a deprived home who no longer can enrol at four years will be pitiable in the future.
I can appreciate that Fine Gael may not be particularly interested in the deprived child but I am rather concerned to find that the Labour Party and the two Deputies whose names are on the amendment should vote to deprive these children. This is something which their supporters will find difficult to understand. May I remind the Coalition parties that before the election they promised positive discrimination in favour of the socially and educationally deprived? Indeed, after the election they stated that the needs of the disadvantaged would be given special attention. The decision of the Minister and the Government to raise the entry age to primary schools runs totally contrary to these declarations. Far from discriminating in favour of the socially and educationally deprived, they are positively discriminating against these children.
Where will the socially and educationally deprived families get the money to pay for pre-school education, even if it is available? Where will those on low incomes or the unemployed get the money for nursery schooling? The educational needs of such children will be particularly damaged and taking account of the rapid rise in the number of unemployed it is obvious that many more children will be placed in the deprived categories.
Schemes giving deprived children a push over their disadvantage at a young age were once widely criticised but now these schemes have been proved to be a good social and economic investment. Longtitudinal studies carried out in the United States have shown that pupils who get such educational assistance were far less likely to be put in special education, that is to say in remedial classes, or to be held back a grade during their subsequent school career. Research has shown that by the age of 15 years such children scored an average of 8 per cent higher on reading, arithmetic and language tests than the control group. That meant they were the equivalent of one academic year ahead. Such assistance showed up outside the classroom also. For example, delinquency was much more common among those who had not attended school. It was calculated also that the cost of two years schooling at the young age was far less than the subsequent benefits over an average individual lifetime. This accrued mainly from the fact that there was less need for remedial education and there was increased earnings as an adult.
One might ask how this applies to our situation? First, the study in the United States related to children in the four to six age group. Secondly, it related to children coming from deprived homes. Thirdly, and very important, the only form of kindergarten schooling, the only properly controlled and regulated system of early education available generally in this country, is the primary school.
From what I have said it is clear that the four-year old against whom the school door is now closed will lose out educationally both in the short and long-term and will lose out financially in the long-term as well. This is a very shortsighted policy and it underlines the fact that it was decided on for short-term financial gain to the Exchequer rather than the long-term educational and financial advantage of the individual and the community generally.
In his statement announcing the change the Minister stated it was done "for the purpose of enabling better organisation of classes to be effected in national schools". I wonder who thought that one up? Is it not clear that it will cause much worse organisation in the national schools? If I might give an example: where there are eight teachers in a school, there is a teacher available for each class. The fact there will now be fewer infants enrolled means that, in many instances, eight-teacher schools will become seven-teacher schools with the organisational problems which will go with such a change. Each teacher will now have a class and part of another class to teach and, of course, the numbers to be taught will increase considerably — eight teachers are needed to teach 260 pupils but if there are only 250 pupils, only seven teachers are employed. If one divides 260 by eight and 250 by seven one will see what I am taking about. Is it suggested that a teacher teaching two classes with a greater number of pupils will be able to do better work than a teacher with one class only and fewer pupils in the class?
The greatest problems will arise, however, in three-teacher schools many of which will be reduced to two-teacher schools. These schools will be reduced not at the demand of the community but because of the decision of the Minister. It is very important that we remember that. The problems facing a school losing a teacher are exceptional and the Minister should recognise this. It is clear therefore that it is not only the infants who will not be able to attend school who will be adversely affected by the Minister's decision, but it will also affect those at a higher level right through their lives.
Another argument presented by the Minister in favour of change was that children were too young transferring from the primary schools to the post-primary schools. His decision in relation to the entry age to primary schools does not change the situation one iota. The Minister has not changed the regulations regarding the transfer to post-primary schools. Is it not possible that we will no longer have junior infants and senior infants but simply infants and therefore children will continue to transfer at the same age? I would be happier to see children transfer from primary schools to post-primary schools at a later age, but there are many ways in which such an objective can be achieved other than by raising the entry age to primary schools which I have shown can be detrimental to the development of the children.
If the transfer age of children from primary school to post-primary school is too low, why not have a transitional year at primary school level with a curriculum especially developed by primary and post-primary teachers working in consultation? This would be satisfactory to both the primary and post-primary teachers' viewpoints and would be very beneficial to the children concerned. Alternatively, the child could spend a longer period in infant classes so that young children could have a better opportunity to grasp the fundamental concepts necessary for further education.
Let me again stress the point that where the numbers in a school fall below the figure required to retain the full complement of teachers already teaching in the school, and as a result where one teacher must seek employment elsewhere, the pupil-teacher ratio in that school will be considerably increased. In areas where it is already too high it will create an even worse situation. I have pointed to the educational disadvantages of the Minister's proposals and underline that the more deprived sector of our community will suffer most. The Minister's decision will increase class numbers.
Circular 24/81 will, of course, affect teacher employment. The entitlement of a national school to its complement of teachers is determined by the average number of pupils enrolled in the school. As a result of the restrictions imposed by the Minister for Education, it is estimated that enrolments will be reduced very considerably. The restrictions mean that a number of teaching posts will be extinguished over three years and teachers will be required to transfer to schools up to 45 kilometers away.
While it is true that teachers presently employed will not lose their jobs and that those who become redundant will go on a panel and will be guaranteed a job in another school up to 45 kilometres away, the fact is that many of those who will graduate from colleges of education in the next few years will be without any prospect of a job for a considerable time after graduating. These graduates undertook a three-year course of study on the understanding that there would be jobs for them, and that assurance of employment has been withdrawn by the Minister.
I want to stress this particular aspect of the matter. Unlike the situation in respect of other teachers in our educational system, the Department of Education control the entry of students into colleges of education. I have always held the view that where the Department trained more teachers than they were willing to employ at a given time or where the number trained was too high because of a ministerial decision — such as the decision now taken by the Minister for Education — resulting in primary teacher unemployment, the Department have a responsibility towards those graduates and must shoulder that responsibility. A situation such as this prevailed in the thirties and early forties where some teachers did not get permanent posts for years, with the result that many of them could not qualify for the full pension.
When I was Minister for Education I acknowledged the responsibility of the Department——