asked the Minister for Education if she is satisfied that the capitation grant paid to primary schools is adequate to provide satisfactory heating, maintenance, and teaching aids; if it is intended to increase the grant and, if so, from what date; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Primary Schools Capitation Grants.
2.
Provision has been made in the 1986 Estimates for the rate of capitation grant for national schools to be increased by £2, to £24 per pupil, in respect of the 1985-86 school year. This grant is paid on condition that a sum equal to at least 25 per cent of the State grant is lodged to the school account from local sources.
Since I took office the rate of capitation grant has been increased from £15 per pupil. This represents an increase of 60 per cent in four years, which is a substantial increase in real terms and represents no mean achievement in these difficult times.
The funding of national schools will continue to be a major priority of mine and the Government in the allocation of the resources available for education.
Does the Minister agree that, despite the £2 increase in 1986 and other increases since she came to office, the capitation grant is still well below the cost of running a school? Has she any plans during the coming year to avoid the situation where parents are constantly asked to subscribe to funds for the heating of schools and the provision of equipment as these demands can very often involve three or four children in the same family?
I am not aware that the capitation grant for primary schools is insufficient for the running of schools. As I said, the grant has increased substantially over inflation in the last few years, taking account of any increases in the cost of running schools. There are some areas of particular deprivation where schools are in a rundown condition and we have a disadvantaged fund which we established on coming into office which helps these schools with their running costs. The increase of 60 per cent has helped to solve many of the problems which those schools encountered.
Is the Minister aware that in this morning's newspapers Father Dermot Walshe, chairman of the Primary School Management Association, is quoted as saying that the capitation grant increases are useless and that many families and children are suffering hardship because of demands on them to provide for basic requirements such as heating, maintenance and furniture? Does the Minister accept that this person would know much more about the situation, with respect, than the Minister?
I am not aware of the report in question.
Well, it is there to be read. What steps does the Minister propose to take to remedy this unfair situation, particularly in view of the fact that the most disadvantaged children are imposed on most? Her famous hardship fund is doing nothing to alleviate this problem.
I have not got around to reading the newspapers today but I will read the report very carefully. I have said in the House before that I have had letters from the Archbishop of Dublin and the Bishop of Limerick emphasising how extremely helpful it has been to the Catholic primary managers to have been able to avail of the disadvantaged fund in helping to run schools in deprived areas. Of course there are difficulties in running schools, as in many other areas, but I have tried to meet those difficulties as far as possible within the funds available to me by singling out the primary capitation grants for a particular increase.
Could I pursue the question of costings in connection with running a school? The boys' school in my area which caters for 600 pupils calculated that it costs them in excess of £34 per pupil per year. That refers to costings for last year and I should like the Minister to say whether her Department have produced any costings for various sizes of schools in the city and around the country. If so, could she make that information available to the House so that we can make a realistic comparison between the capitation grant provided and the actual cost?
I do not know whether the Department have any specific costings for running every type of school but, in any event, running costs for schools are immensely variable according to the type of building, whether it is old or new, the design of the building and so on. The figure of £34 which the Deputy mentioned is the amount spent by the school to which he referred on heating and maintenance costs, etc. There could well be a different figure in another area. However, I will certainly inquire into the possibility of arriving at an average cost for running schools. It is also a question of the kind of management put into the running of schools.
Arising out of an earlier reply, while I have much respect for the Hierarchy and their viewpoint, is it not true that the person running the school would have a much better working understanding of the hardship involved rather than those who give opinions from afar?
I can only assume that in the distribution of the disadvantaged fund for primary schools, the cheques of which are made available to the patron of the schools who is the Bishop in the area, the primary school managers are the people who advise the Archbishop or Bishops where the funds should be distributed.
I would appreciate if the Minister could make whatever information she has on costings available. Would she also investigate the anomaly in disadvantaged areas where, because the area is disadvantaged, numbers are falling and schools are losing teachers as a result? Even though these schools are getting £2,000 or £3,000 by way of additional funding it does not overcome the problems caused by the loss of teachers in areas which need a low pupil-teacher ration.
On the question of schools in disadvantaged areas which are losing teachers, in the last year we appointed 92 extra teachers to retain teacher numbers in these schools which enjoy a very much more favourable pupil-teacher ration than schools in less disadvantaged areas. It is very important to stress that we have a very definite policy in this area. I could not accept the Deputy's contention that the extra funding for the running and maintenance of these schools has something to do with losing teachers because we have made very big strides in genuinely helping with teacher numbers in schools in disadvantaged areas. As I said, 92 extra posts were created, apart from the extra remedial posts which we have created in the primary area.
There is a very clear anomaly arising in disadvantaged areas. I am talking about not just the areas which the Minister has designated as disadvantaged, but areas which have not been so designated and which are clearly disadvantaged. Because parents are not anxious to send their children to schools which they perceive as being disadvantaged, the numbers are falling, the parish contribution is falling, and there is difficulty in collecting that contribution from other parishes. Therefore, there is not only, relatively speaking, a poor capitation grant, but they are also short of money by way of parish contributions. They are losing teachers because of the fall in numbers and the £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000, whatever it is, special grant under the disadvantaged scheme, where they get it — and they do not all get it — is not making up for those losses and those difficulties.
I am not sure what the question was——
It was a statement really.
I have given a very definite priority to the disadvantaged areas in the primary sector. I am trying to arrive at the stage where the fund increases and we retain as many teachers as possible. All this has to be done within the available resources at my disposal.