Before proceeding with item 21, I would like to say to our visitors, all of whom are welcome, that any intervention during the debate will be regarded as disorderly and unacceptable.
Private Members' Business. - School Enrolment Age: Motion (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by Deputy Wilson on 3 November 1981:
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.
Debate resumed on 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."—(Minister for Education).
It is a matter of very grave concern that the Minister's contribution to the debate on a matter of great importance to our children and the future of our people should be a bellicose speech with no educational content. Only a very few minutes were devoted to proposals for the future. This may be understandable because he has given no real thought to his proposals and is not in any position to develop them. It has been my experience in this House over the years that when a speaker has nothing to say on the subject under debate, or wishes to avoid saying anything of substance, the way out is to indulge in shadow-boxing. On a matter of very great import for our children it is not good enough that a Minister for Education should adopt such a procedure.
The Minister has the temerity to accuse us of speaking of matters in this debate other than the welfare of children. I am more than willing to have my speech and that of the Minister studied by impartial observers and to abide by their decision as to which of us showed most concern for children's education. The greater part of my speech was concerned solely with the damage to the education of our four to six year olds arising from the Minister's decision. I use the word "education" here in its broadest context. While I referred to teacher unemployment, I related it to the detrimental effect on education resulting from fewer teachers in our schools in the future and to the matter of equity and fair play in respect of students in colleges of education, particularly as the Department of Education controls entry to such colleges.
Every Deputy here — and that includes Deputies who propose to vote on the Minister's side — knows that the pre-school scheme promised by the Minister has no substance.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister's decision was made for the purpose of effecting a saving and nobody here is so foolish as to believe that he will spend that saving, and much more besides, on the development of a pre-school system. There is no doubt that we will see one or two symbolic gestures by the Minister to lend a helping hand to those he expects to support him in the lobbies. There is no doubt in anybody's mind here, irrespective of what side of the House he or she is on, but that nothing of substance will emerge.
We have a curriculum which, at infant level, contains a high degree of informality and flexibility. Great progress has been made in the development of the child's intellectual capacity through the operation of this curriculum in recent years. The need now is for more teachers, more facilities, more equipment at infant level. Given this, the Minister can be assured that he will be conferring real benefit on our children and ensuring their future well-being and that of the country.
I again appeal to the Minister to withdraw his decision and to allow children of four years of age to enrol at infant level for the benefit of their education.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but his time is up now. The next speaker is Deputy Blaney. In accordance with the order made, there will be a matter of three minutes during which Deputy Blaney will be required to make his contribution.
In which time, he will be able to say everything he has to say.
What I wish to say on this subject I probably can say in three minutes and will probably satisfy nobody by saying it. It is that, far from there being a need, or a good reason, for raising the age at which children are allowed to enter school, far too little is being done for the pre-five group, to educate children at what is now regarded as their most impressionable age. Why we should have this proposal to raise the age is a puzzle. If it is money, it is a sad misinterpretation to consider it worthwhile for the saving it may make. If, on the other hand, it is being deplored merely because teachers might have less employment, or fewer of them might be employed, this, in itself — while something to be regretted — is not the reason we should give either. Whether it is a convenience or an inconvenience for the parents that they should or should not be allowed to send their children to school before four or five years is not the important aspect in any sense of the word, despite the fact that it may be of particular concern to many parents. Far too little has been said about the children. Money, parents and teachers have been much in the news, much debated upon and commented upon and far too little has been spoken about the children.
My knowledge of what might be done for children between three and six years of age may be totally inadequate but it is now commonly held by expert authorities that their most impressionable age is between three and six. It is also true that languages come to children more easily at an earlier age than at any other time in their lives. If there is anything that we as a people lack, it is multi-lingualism. That is very noticeably absent from us as we now go abroad more and mix more than we might have done in the past. We heard a cry over the years that bi-lingualism was, in fact, inhibiting our children's education. I was brought up believing that. Now I find, when I go abroad, that three, four and five languages are not unusual and, in fact, three and four are the norm. For instance in Belgium, many people are fluent in five, six, seven, eight and nine languages and are learning a tenth. I suggest that, instead of talking about raising the age, we should be trying to utilise the years up to five when the ordinary curriculum starts. We should concentrate on exposing these children to various languages, starting with our own language, Irish, and going on from that to some of the modern continental languages. In that way, we would give the children a groundwork which would be easily built upon long afterwards, to their very great benefit.
I fully agree with those who say that our children are leaving school too early at the moment. I may be out of date but when they do leave school they have not even the basics of education. What is wrong? I do not believe the fault lies with the teachers. It must lie with the curriculum. It is almost true to say that many students on leaving school cannot add two and two together, or spell anything other than their own names correctly.
I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Blaney, but he has already exceeded his three minutes. Deputy Wilson to conclude. Deputy Flanagan, on a point of order.
On a point of order, has the Chair any further allocations of three minutes available?
No, Deputy Flanagan. The order was, as I have indicated, that three minutes were allocated to Deputy Faulkner, three minutes in the valley — as it were — and then the order was to allow Deputy Wilson 15 minutes in which to conclude. That is the order of the House.
Firstly, the importance of this motion has been emphasised by this side of the House. It has been emphasised that people should consider, in aid of the Minister for Education, supporting this motion before the House. This proposal is the this end of the wedge and if it were to succeed it would be disastrous. In passing my motion the Deputies in this House will have strengthened the hand of the Minister for Education when other attacks are made on the education budget. It is well known to every Member of this House that the red herring has an honoured position in parliamentary debate, covering weak argument. We had plenty of red herrings in this debate. We had the suggestion that circular 24 of 1981 was introduced for the better organisation of our schools. Anybody who argued thus was resolved to die in the last ditch of prevarication. Corporal punishment was dangled as a red herring to keep people's minds off what was being done. The Combat Poverty group were introduced by way of a very deeply smelling red herring and the Working Party on Child Care were also introduced. I contend that not since Biddy Mulligan was selling the fish at Patrick Street corner have we seen so many red herrings around the city of Dublin.
We will not allow the Minister to get away with the red herring. We maintain — we are fully convinced of this — that the Minister for Finance in October attacked the education budget by changing the rules of admission to primary schools. This was on 1 October not 1 September, so that the problem did not arise at the beginning of the school year. People could be gradually edged into the situation which the new circular 24/81 was bringing about. This was a clever move because the anger of the parents would have swept the Minister for Education and the Department of Education away on a tide of anger had this thing been attempted a month earlier.
The philosophy behind it was to save money at the expense of the children of the country. I contend that this barbarous philosophy in the offspring of "cold-hearts and muddy understandings" and nothing else. When the Minister for Education made his contribution last week he said he did not have any consultation. Why did he not have consultation? He did not have any consultation because he was afraid he would be opposed. This is a new definition of parliamentary democracy. The Minister would not give an opportunity to people to discuss their vital interests, people such as parents, teachers or unions. The ukase comes and that is it. Do not consult lest there be opposition.
Our position is as outlined last week. There is an eight year period laid down for primary schools, a carefully constructed curriculum, which was worked on for many years, which was tested in the schools. The first module of that eight year curriculum, consisting of the first two years, covers the infant period. The best psychological training and insight went into the construction of that curriculum. We have the curriculum and we have the trained teachers. That is very important. Those teachers are trained in the light of that curriculum, with the objective of putting that curriculum into practice and with the teaching of it in view.
We have a two-year module, a careful curriculum and trained teachers. What are we being offered? The House knows from what we heard last week that the children are not being offered anything. The amendment to the amendment, the botch of the botch to which I referred last week was a highly insulting one for our teachers. Deputy Power was perfectly in his rights when he resented it last week. He was expressing the views of the vast majority of the people in the profession and outside it. If Deputy Kemmy and Deputy Browne knew what was going on in the country for the past decade there is no way they would put down this insulting extension to the amendment.
I would like to remind the Deputy that the amendment in question was not moved.
The amendment to the amendment.
The amendment to the amendment was not moved.
I do not want to get involved in the definition. This is taken with the Government amendment now. Anybody who says that the programme we have now is damaging the pupils in the schools does not know what is going on. It is a common experience of parents that the children are distraught if at any time they have to miss a day in school because they are so pleased with the type of education they are getting and the way they are being handled at the infant level.
Last week I read into the record of the House the considered view of the Department of Education on this proposition in 1980. I said the views were considered views, they were measured views, they were civilised views but, above all, they were professional views. There was no professional input into the decision of circular 24/81. I challenge the Minister for Education on this. I know the Department of Education and unless his Fine Gael appointees in the Department of Education have those views I know the permanent officials both educationalists and administrators in that Department do not hold them.
There is a mention of positive discrimination in the area of those who are socially deprived. There is positive discrimination in this circular, 24/81, but it is against those who are from the socially disadvantaged areas and against those who most need the stimulus in the beginning of their career in primary education. Deputy Faulkner referred to the Rutland Street experiment. That has proved that the stimulation is good, that it makes for educational advance in those areas. When you lock the school doors on them you are depriving them of that stimulus. It is hard on the socially deprived who want to develop social and intellectual skills. It is hard on people from remote areas.
I could mention the problem about transport, which was mentioned in this debate. When children of four years of age are taken off the quota for school transport there is a danger that school transport will be discontinued. There is also very serious positive discrimination against parents where both parents have to work. This was adverted to. I cannot expand on all those areas but Members of the House know and the people who are in the educational world know that when both parents are working it is very necessary to apply educational stimulus early on.
There is one thing I would like to emphasise because it has not been emphasised in the debate. We were, in following what obtained up to 30 September 1981, providing a facility for parents who are free to use it as they wish. There is total freedom on the part of the parents whether they should send their children to school. There is not an element of compulsion in that regard and there is no traumatic effect.
In the programmes of Fine Gael and Labour for the general election we were told that the improvement of the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools was very important. They did not tell the people that the way they would improve the ratio was by the expulsion of the innocents from school. This is a very simple one. If you keep putting them out you can have a one teacher, one pupil, a one and one, situation. When we were improving the pupil-teacher ratio we were taking in the four years olds and year by year, including 1981, we were training teachers to bring down the pupil-teacher ratio. I found classes of over 40 numbered between 3,000 and 4,000 and, as far as I know, it was not more than about 650 when I left office last June. I want to put that on the record because it has been peddled around in the House and outside it, through the media and in the newspapers that we fell down on this particular programme. That is not in accordance with the facts.
I gather the Minister for Education talked to the Labour Party. What bargain did they get? What bargain did Deputy Browne and Deputy Kemmy get when they went to see the Minister for Education on that afternoon? A damn bad bargain, with due respect. Senator Many Robinson would not buy it for one, and I am sure other members of the Labour Party are very unhappy with it. I suspect the Chairman of the Labour Party could not possibly but agree that what he was getting in respect of four year old entrants to primary school was a damn bad bargain.
Deputy Faulkner mentioned that the Minister spent one-and-half-minutes saying what would substitute for what existed up to 30 September 1981. He said a national register of pre-schools is to be established. He said the Department of Health would provide inspectors to inspect them. Education be damned. Education out the door. The Department of Health were to come in and that would be it. Wait for it. The other big bargain was that operators would be trained for the pre-schools.
The Deputy has half-a-minute.
I have more than that.
My apologies. I am told the Deputy is to finish at 6.41.
He mentioned areas of deprivation and disadvantage. Four times during the course of that debate I asked: how much? Once Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn asked: how much? We got no answer. The House can draw its own conclusion from that. It is not merely the Labour Party, the Fine Gael backbenchers, Deputy Kemmy and Deputy Browne who are concerned. The children of the country, and especially the children of those who are married among the 129,211 unemployed about whom we read this morning, are the ones who will suffer.
I want to reiterate what Deputy Faulkner said about the substance of my contribution on the last occasion in this House. Eighty-five per cent of my speech was on the educational aspect of circular 24/81 and 15 per cent was about teachers' posts and the plight of the trainee teachers. I challenge the House to examine the record on that. Deputy Faulkner said the Department of Education have a special responsibility for the people they take into training in the colleges of education. The Department of Education took them in with a view to using them in our teaching force. They are not entitled to wash their hands of them. That is a fact which cannot be controverted.
There is an obligation on the Department of Education to provide employment for the 300 teachers I put into training in 1978 to be extra to those required for new schools and extra to those required to substitute for people retiring in 1981. There will be 300 more in 1982 because I did not stop recruiting in 1978 and next summer people will also be coming out of the training colleges.
I must ask the Deputy to conclude. I think he has gone over his time.
Unprincipled and fascistic are the only words I can use in this regard. The Minister backed down on two-teachers schools. He backed down on minority schools. He backed down on pre-schools. He did not send out any circular about pre-schools with the original circular. He backed down on the handicapped. I would ask him to back down on his amendment. Who supports him? The parents? No. The boards? No. The INTO? No. The Labour Teachers' Association who are picketing? No. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions? No. Dublin Corporation? No. Senator Mary Robinson? No. Will the Minister call on Deputy Browne and Deputy Kemmy? Let the rabbits hear his call. He may get support from a journalist he put on a State board, which prompts me to remember Boss Croker's definition of honesty: a man who when bought stays bought. He will not get any support from the education people, or the parents. Anybody who supports this motion is doing a good job not merely for education, but for the Minister who is starting out on his career in the Department of Education.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 79.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Browne, Noël.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh. (Dublin North-West).
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, John J.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Madeleine.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá Deputies L'Estrange and Mervyn Taylor; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Browne, Noël.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh. (Dublin North-West).
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Taylor, Madeleine.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, John J.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and Mervyn Taylor; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.
Amendment declared carried.
Tá
|
Acheson, Carrie.Ahern, Bertie.Alderman Dublin Bay-RockallLoftusm, Seán D.Allen, Lorcan.Andrews, David.Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Michael.Barrett, Sylvester.Blaney, Neil T.Brady, Gerard.Brady, Vincent.Brennan, Paudge.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Burke, Raphael P.Byrne, Hugh. (Wexford).Callanan, John.Clothessy, Peadar.Colley, George.Collins, Gerard.Conaghan, Hugh.Connolly, Gerard.Coughlan, Clement.Cowen, Bernard.Crinion, Brendan.Crowley, Flor.Daly, Brendan.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Jackie.Faulkner, Pádraig.Filgate, Eddie.Fitzgerald, Gene.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central). Sherlock, Joe.Smith, Michael.Tunney, Jim.Walsh, Seán. |
Fitzsimons, Jim.Flynn, Pádraig.Foley, Denis.French, Seán.Gallagher, Denis.Gallagher, Pat Cope.Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Charles J.Hyland, Liam.Joyce, Carey.Keegan, Seán.Kenneally, William.Killilea, Mark.Kitt, Michael P.Lemass, Eileen.Lenihan, Brian.Leyden, Terry.Loughnane, William.Lyons, Denis.McCarthy, Seán.McCreevy, Charlie.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacSharry, Ray.Meaney, Tom.Molloy, Robert.Moore, Seán.Morley, P.J.Murphy, Ciarán P.Nolan, Tom.Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).O'Donoghue, Martin.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Leary, John.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Paddy.Reynolds, Albert. Wilson, John P.Woods, Michael J.Wyse, Pearse. |
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níil, 79.
Tá
- Acheson, Carrie.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Alderman Dublin Bay-Rockall
- Loftus, Seán D.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh. (Wexford).
- Callanan, John.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Joyce, Carey.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P. J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
Question declared carried.
Dishonesty.
Ask the experts.