By agreement and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Members will be called in Private Members' time this evening as follows: 7 p.m. to 7.40 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker, 7.40 p.m. to 8 p.m., a Government speaker, 8 p.m. to 8.10 p.m., a Government speaker, 8.10 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Carysfort Training College: Motion.
That means that there is no further sub-division of time. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the arbitrary and precipitate decision of the Government to close down Carysfort College and requests that immediate action be taken to ensure that this great and valuable institution be retained as an integral part of our higher educational system, with a specific role in teacher education.
Ar an gceád dul síos, déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Teachta Cooney as ucht a cheaptha mar Aire Oideachais le déanaí. Tá comhghairdeas tuillte freisin ag an Teachta Enda Kenny de bharr a thofa mar Aire Stáit sa Roinn chéanna. Is cúis áthais agus cúis bhróid domsa mar urlabhraí do Fhianna Fáil ar chúrsaí oideachais an rún seo a chur os comhair na Dála anocht, go háirithe as ucht an clú agus an cháil tá bainte amach ag Coláiste Carysfort ar fud na tíre.
I wish to place on the record my personal congratulations and those of my party to the new Minister for Education, Deputy Patrick Cooney, a constituency colleague of mine from LongfordWestmeath. I wish him well in his tenure of office. I wish to extend my congratulations also to the Minister of State at the same Department, Deputy Enda Kenny, and to wish him well in the onerous but, I am sure, rewarding task ahead of him working in close consultation with the Minister. I should like to place on record also the honour and pleasure it gives me as spokesperson for my party formally to move this motion.
I have been very heartened by the many amendments put down to this motion. If proof were needed that education is such a lively, interesting and vital topic in every day life in Ireland that is evident from the fact that the Government have put down an amendment in the name of the Minister for Education. There is another in the name of The Workers' Party and latterly there is one also from the Progressive Democrats. Therefore it is one of the few ocasions on which each party have participated in a debate such as this. I welcome the fact that there is such interest shown by all parties in this matter.
When perusing the various amendments to the motion, it struck me that each of the three, the one in the name of the Minister, that in the name of The Workers' Party and that in the name of the Progressive Democrats, while very worthy and well-intentioned — as is illustrated by the words they have used — fights shy of mentioning words like "teacher training", "teacher education", "pre-service education", and of those words which mean that an element of Carysfort College should be maintained as turning out primary school teachers. I cannot put it any plainer. I should say that various terminologies are bandied about. One often hears of teacher training, of teacher education, of pre-service training but all mean the one thing — equipping young men and women in this country to be primary school teachers. That is essentially what Carysfort College has been doing over a great number of years. They have been doing so in their present abode since 1903. Prior to that they did so from their Baggot Street premises for a great deal longer.
When this issue broke four weeks ago and when I was engaging in research for this debate I was fascinated by the history of the Sisters of Mercy and to learn what they had contributed not alone to the educational scene but in truly historical sense to the social fabric of this country. In the course of this debate it is only correct that we pay tribute to that tradition, history and culture which was begun so many years ago by Mother Catherine McAuley. By way of a gentle aside, for no other reason but to show my deep interest in the subject, I should say I came across a very interesting personal historical fact. My grandfather on my father's side was a primary school teacher. He was married twice. His first wife was a graduate of Baggot Street, of the early Mercy Convent. She taught with him in a small two-teacher school in County Clare. She died early in life. Later he married one of the first graduates of Carysfort College. In speaking here this evening I feel I am representing much of what happened in the past and what I hope will continue in the future for this very historic establishment.
The case before us this evening is that of Carysfort College and what should or should not happen this great college. I would appeal to the new Minister for Education to consider carefully the case we put forward here this evening, to retain Carysfort College as an integral part of our higher education system, with a specific component role in teacher education.
I regret greatly — indeed it is a matter of great regret thoughout the country — that the Government, by their contradictory actions and statements on the Carysfort College issue, created conflict, heightened tensions, giving rise to uncertainty and doubt not alone among the student staff and management of the college but throughout the country where the name of that college is hallowed and respected.
It was exactly four weeks, not alone to the day but to the date, that I asked in this House at 3.45 in the afternoon what were the Government's intentions with regard to Carysfort College. Let me immediately remove any cloud that might surround the question I asked, as the Ceann Comhairle graciously allowed me to do on the Order of Business, and which I had every right to do as spokesperson for my party. Four days later I noticed that Young Fine Gael castigated both the Archbishop of Dublin and myself for, as they contended, having exploded this issue. I have never met His Grace, the Archbishop of Dublin. I hope I shall some time. I greatly admire things he has said and done. I have never met him nor he me. We have never communicated; we have never spoken directly to one another or through intermediaries. I want that clearly stated. As that week went on I understand that the Minister sought — by way of various television, radio and press statements — to put across different versions of how she would have announced the closure of the college had she been given carte blanche, so to speak, without my “interference”. My “interference” was because I sought to raise this issue on the floor of this House where we are constantly told matters of importance to the country should be first aired. I sought to raise it where, as of right, I felt it should have been raised. An historical analysis will show that when I raised it the information had already been imparted to all the relevant authorities concerned about this matter. Therefore, rather than anticipating the event I followed it. It is a matter of regret that a grouping that from time to time imagines itself to be in the forefront of social and liberal issues has chosen to completely misinterpret what happened and put false statements on the record.
I have no doubt that the Minister's amendment is well intentioned but it is too vague for everybody concerned. It does not have a specific commitment written into it. I understand that the Minister will be making his contribution tomorrow night and it may be that he will elaborate more fully on the intentions in his amendment. If it is his intention to retain a commitment to teacher education we will be glad. If that specific commitment is given it may be that there will not be a need for a vote on the motion. A vague undefined policy about the future of the college will not satisfy the public. Like many others it is my belief that it would be economic, social and educational folly to close the college. Fianna Fáil feel that Carysfort must be retained as a dynamic enhanced centre for education. The board of the college have readily acknowledged the need for a new vision for the future for their establishment. Their vision is not a dream that cannot be attained; it is practical, comprehensive and, above all, can be implemented.
When the dispute arose four weeks ago the board of the college were very hurt. Those people had put forward a carefully prepared scheme for rationalisation to the Department and while part of the proposal had been discussed other elements had not. As a result there was disappointment by the board of management. Those people acknowledge that the proposals for rationalisation can be implemented. The topic for discussion tonight is the contribution of the Sisters of Mercy over the past 150 years. They were involved in the monitorial system at first and later in the full education training sense. A commitment to people over 150 years cannot be thrown away lightly. What Carysfort is good at is teacher training, its essential role down the years. The college wishes to retain a specific role in teacher education allied to other third level education courses.
When we talk about how advanced women are, about the chartering of new territory, the climbing of new frontiers and use feminist terminology we forget that Mother Catherine McAuley, and her sisters in religion, were liberated before the term was ever coined. The young women who went through their training schools, at Baggot Street or Carysfort, returned to their communities to become figures of leadership and motivators. When the history of the role of women in Ireland is written the part played by the religious pioneers should be clearly identified. The first priority of the Mercy Order was the care of the poor and that led Mother McAuley, and her sisters, to believe that they could best help the disadvantaged through education. It was their view that the less well-off should be given the opportunity for advancement through the national school system. The qualifications bestowed by Baggot Street and, later by Carysfort gave women teachers a status which they took back to their communities and made them leadership figures. The term women's liberation had not been coined but those women teachers knew what it was to achieve and wield power in the sense of motivation, of leadership, of induction into education. They experienced the joy of seeing the interaction of their work with their pupils brought to fruition as the young men and women became the leaders in society in the early twenties.
I have always held that nuns are the most marvellous realists in the world. They have coped with the changing circumstances of life, have become managers and dynamic people in their own way. The Sisters of Mercy at Carysfort are well aware that there will be fewer children going through the primary school system in the future. It would be very foolish of me, and would not be sustainable as an argument, if I advoager cated that we should continue Carysfort solely as a teacher education college. We are all aware that falling birth rates will result in fewer pupils going through the national school system but we cannot say that because of that our pupil-teacher ratio problems in such schools will vanish. They will not. Our objective should be to establish a better pupil-teacher ratio. We should never become complacent about that. Between 1977 and 1981 the Fianna Fáil Minister for Education, Deputy John Wilson, set about lowering the pupil-teacher ratio but that work has been halted. We should work to improve that ratio all the time. The fact that pupil numbers will fall should not lead anybody to say that we do not need an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. I recognise that falling numbers will pose a problem but, like everything else in life, adversities have opportunities in them.
The board of the college rose to the challenge put to them swiftly and with great intellectual acumen. With their experts they prepared a plan for rationalisation which they presented to the Government for consideration. Because the brief given to the Order by their Foundress was teacher education, it has been an essential part of the work of the Mercy Order since. Such a brief cannot be ignored. Carysfort and, before it, Baggot Street have been carrying out this work very well for more than 150 years. When I drew up our document, Education — The Early Years, I said very clearly that the falling birth rate would have an effect on the future role of teacher training colleges. We, therefore, proposed that the surplus capacity in colleges of education — this was exactly a year and a half ago — should be used to provide a comprehensive range of in-service courses for all teachers allied to a component role for teacher education.
Another aspect of the facilities of Carysfort College which should be addressed in the broad scope of this debate is that of the Curriculum and Examinations Board. I do not think it should be sited in Carysfort, as has been suggested, because it was announced by the former Minister that the headquarters of the board would be in Athlone. It would be very foolish of me to say that that should be changed, and I know that the Minister would not dream of doing so. However, the setting up of the statutory Curriculum and Examinations Board, which is due to be enacted through legislation in this session, has suggested far-reaching changes in the curriculum and examination system at second level. The Government, the Opposition, pupils, teachers and boards of management agree that there should be changes in the curriculum and we look forward to the legislation coming before us.
The setting up of that board means that there will be a great need for huge ongoing and regular professional help to assist teachers to cope in an ever-changing and more demanding society. I know what that means because, before I was elected to this House, I was a teacher and even at that stage — four years ago — the world was changing rapidly. While I know that there is need for change in the curriculum, we will be proceeding festina lente because it must be very well thought out. Nobody, least of all the Department, expects teachers to go into the classroom when the changes are brought about, albeit gradually, particularly in the element of assessment of examinations, without adequate preparation. New subjects are proposed, including new mathematics, changes in literature, different languages, aural and oral elements of European languages, increasing emphasis on project work and continual assessment. Many of these changes are already taking place through experiments. With the setting up of the board these changes will become more evident and prolific, but they cannot come about without teachers constantly attending in-service courses.
There is no other job which requires men and women to work for up to 40 years without renewal or reinvigoration. Generally speaking, second level school teachers have very few areas of in-service training. From time to time primary school teachers have opportunities in this regard, but this does not apply at second level except in the case of those run by the various disciplines such as the history society, history teachers' association or the language teachers' association. They do their best but they operate within very limited means. With the advent of the board there is a huge need for courses for teachers which Carysfort College could provide. They already run some of these courses and are adaptable to change.
I was pleased to note the Minister's visit to Carysfort last week. I was there about two years ago at a function and had the pleasure of visiting it again within the last few days. I saw the convent and the college and I was very impressed by the people with whom I spoke and the general atmosphere. I was also very impressed by the modern equipment and infrastructure which is being added to the college and which makes it one of the foremost centres for education throughout Europe. There is marvellous technological equipment, theatres, lecture rooms, electronic equipment, videos and television. There are acres of knowledge which could contribute so much to the future of education. It makes one wonder at the mentality of someone who could write a letter saying that she regretted that Carysfort College would be closed. This is what the former Minister for Education, Deputy Hussey, did four weeks ago. The letters quite clearly stated that Carysfort College would close.
The purpose behind the debate is to put forward our ideas but, most of all, to seek a declaration from the Minister as to what his plans are regarding the college. We know that they need to be explored with the appropriate authorities and that there is much talking to be done. We wish to know if there will be a component of teacher education in the college in the future because, if not, the road ahead for other developmental plans will not be very straight and the Sisters of Mercy, as owners of the establishment will see that their essential role in life — the education of teachers to educate young people — will not be carried on. Everybody would like to know where he or she stands in order to plan their next step.
Perhaps the Minister is wondering how all these activities could be housed in one establishment. That is the point I wish to make the central issue of the debate. There can be marvellous educational advantages from the interaction of the various groups of people who would be involved in an enhanced vision of a Carysfort College of the future. First of all, there would be a group of student teachers, teacher training, teacher education or in-service education, whatever one likes to call it. They would be diminished in numbers, but they would be carrying on what has been done so well over the years. There is also an essential need for very intensive courses for teachers of all kinds. I am particularly concerned with second level teachers because courses for them have been greatly neglected. There would also be third level courses for the higher educational system. These courses could be very well run in Carysfort College as they have the equipment and the skill to conduct them. The debate so far on third level courses in the context of Carysfort has focused on the humanities — the social sciences, communications, the liberal arts and child studies as well as youth community work studies. All of these are very valuable in themselves.
On the programme "Morning Ireland" on 5 February, which was the day after the news of the closure of Carysfort burst on us stunned citizens, the former Minister said that Carysfort was not suitable for technological third level education. I would dispute that statement. Either the Minister had not visited the buildings before then or else she had been there and had not noticed the advances that I have observed there in the past few days. Trinity College, which is very old, adapted its buildings very successfully in their plan for diversification development. There is no reason why Carysfort should not be adapted to provide third level education in selective technologies in conjunction with liberal — humanities — arts third level courses.
There is a growing and respected volume of opinion that to be a good technologist one must first be educated. These new and exciting technological developments can be leavened by the old sciences of knowledge of the arts and of the humanities. I am expressing what I have long considered to be the case when I say that an educated technologist would be best able to cope in a changing environment. I do not agree with the trend whereby the whole emphasis in the world is on technology at all costs but a basic education is imperative to the development of a good technologist. That basic education followed by a third level education in the humanities and the arts would equip one for a latter type of professional education if that was what one wished for.
Those who speak of education purely in a technological sense are missing the whole point of the advances in education because one cannot succeed in all of the new sciences unless one has first been imbued with the whole science of education. Technology, which ten years ago we regarded as exciting and dynamic, is almost outdated and outmoded now. To cope with those changes one must be properly equipped and the best way to achieve that is to be educated properly in the real meaning of that term.
Another course which Carysfort would be entirely suited for would be educational psychology for which there is a huge need. We have ignored this area up to now. There are some such courses at primary level but none at second level. When a young child is considered to be suffering from some disorder of behaviour for which assessment is required, he is assessed clinically from the health point of view but there is no interaction between that type of assessment and the educational course the child is following. We must pay much greater attention to this type of education. We must pay more attention to the lacunae in the system for this type of disability and there will have to be close liaison between the Departments of Health and Education in this area. There must be continuous monitoring of children suffering from various disorders, either educationally or clinically.
Carysfort could play an exciting role in this area. The college could pioneer a whole new discipline of educational psychology. I foresee a role, too, for the college in the area of computer education. Through an intermediary I have had discussions with the computer firms and they would be very interested in helping to set up within Carysfort a computer resource centre for educationalists and students to use at will and later for students pursuing third level courses.
My hope for Carysfort is that it will retain a component of teacher training education, that it will continue to turn out national school teachers, that it will bring forward a whole range of inservice courses for teachers of all levels, that it will provide educational psychologist courses, perhaps leading to full degrees and that it will have a computer education resource within its portals. Perhaps I have wandered from the point from time to time but I am very involved in this issue because what we are talking of here tonight relates not only to Carysfort but to the case for education in the country as a whole.
This is an historic occasion. Since the teacher training colleges were set up so many years ago, since the Sisters of Mercy embarked on their pioneering work for the poor and for the education of young people, this is the first time that the representatives of the country have been talking not just about the scaling down but of the phasing out of the teacher training element within Carysfort.
I should like to quote a delightful statement from Viscount Morley, who was Gladstone's secretary, when he visited Our Lady of Mercy College in Baggot Street in 1894. He said, and I quote from the publication, Our Lady of Mercy College, Centenary 1877-1977:
I must say that these women please me vastly. Their atmosphere is human, they are keen about their work; it is all moving and alive with sympathy; not mechanical, all chalk and a blackboard.
Here we are in 1986. If the Viscount found the college all that exciting and dynamic all those years ago, why should we not have a new vision of Carysfort and decide here this evening that the college has a future and that part of that future is the continuance of what the college has been doing so well in the past, that is, teacher training?
Ba mhaith liom ar dtús mo bhuíochas a ghlacadh leis an Teachta O'Rourke as ucht na bhfocal atá ráite aici i dtaobh mo cheapacháin mar Aire Stáit agus go deimhin i dtaobh cheapacháin an Teachta Cooney mar Aire Oideachais.
Mar a fheicimse an scéal an buntáiste is mó a bhaineann leis an díospóireacht ar an rún seo ná go gcuireann sé deis ar fáil dúinn na fíricí i dtaobh oiliúint múinteoirí náisiúnta a chur os comhair na Dála, iad a phlé agus a chur trí chéile. Beidh sé soiléir os na fíricí seo gur ghlac an Rialtas leis an mbealach ceart chun na fadhbanna sa ghné seo den oideachas a réiteach nuair a chinn siad ar chríoch a chur le hoiliúint múinteoirí náisiúnta i gceann de na coláistí oideachais mhóra. Tharla dá thoradh san gur chuir an tAire Oideachais in iúl do Bhainisteoir an Choláiste, A Ghrása Ardeaspag Caitliceach Bhaile Átha Cliath, go raibh sé i gceist deontais i leith na hoibre seo a chealú i gcás Choláiste Bhantiarna na Trócaire, Dún Céirí. Is dá bharr san atá leasú ar an rún á mholadh agamsa agus an téacs atá ar an leasú seo ná:
that Dáil Éireann notes the action of the Government in rationalising the facilities for the training of primary teachers and in seeking, through discussions with the interested parties an alternative role in higher education for the Carysfort College, having regard to its structure and traditions, the expertise of its staff and the developmental requirements of education generally.
Faoi na Rialacha do Scoileanna Náisiúnta is é an tAire Oideachais a chuireann cabhair i bhfoirm deontais ar fáil do na coláistí oiliúna chun a chinntiú go mbeidh i gcónaí dóthain múinteoirí náisiúnta oilte ar fáil chun an t-éileamh atá orthu i scoileanna náisiúnta a shásamh.
Is dá thoradh seo a bunaíodh nó gur tugadh aithint do shé Choláiste Oiliúna, nó Coláistí Oideachais mar a tugtar orthu anois sa tír seo chun oideachas agus oiliúint a chur ar dhaoine gur mian leo bheith ina múinteoirí náisiúnta. Is iad na coláistí sin ná Coláiste Oideachais Naomh Pádraig, Droim Conrach; Coláiste Oideachais Bhantiarna na Trócaire, Páirc Dhún Céirí; Coláiste Oideachais Mhuire gan Smál, Luimneach; Coláiste Oideachais Eaglais na hÉireann, Ráth Maonais; Coláiste Oideachais Froebel, Cnoc Síon; agus Coláiste Oideachais Naomh Muire, Marino.
Glacann gach ceann de na coláistí le buachaillí agus le cailíní agus taobh amuigh de roinnt bheag oibre a dhéanann siad in oiliúint inseirbhíse d'oidí oilte, is coláistí iad go bhfuil an t-aon aidhm amháin acu, sé sin oidí cáilithe a chur ar fáil do scoileanna náisiúnta na tíre. Tá na coláistí seo eagraithe ar an mbonn céanna leis na scoileanna náisiúnta féin sa mhéid go dtagann siad faoi chorás bainistíochta sainchreideamhach. I gcás an dá choláiste mhóra i mBaile Átha Cliath sé a Ghrása, Ardeaspag Caitliceach Bhaile Átha Cliath atá ina bhainisteor orthu, cé go bhfuil siad á stiúrú ag na sagairt d'Ord San Uinseann i gcás amháin agus ag Siúracha na Trócaire i gcás eile. Arís ní miste béim a chur ar an bpointe seo mar ba léir sa díospóireacht phoiblí a bhí ar siúl ar an gceist seo nár thuig an pobal i gcoiteann, Teachtaí Dála agus oideachasóirí ina measc, gurab eisean an t-Ardeaspag atá freagrach ina leith. I gcás an choláiste mhóir i Luimneach, sé Easpag Caitliceach Luimnigh atá ina bhainisteor air cé go bhfuil sé á stiúrú ag Siúracha na Trócaire.
Faigheann na coláistí uile seo deontais ón Roinn Oideachais. Íoctar deontas díreach leis na bainisteoirí de na ceithre choláiste tosaigh atá luaite agam agus is trí dheontais chaipitíochta a íoctar an dá choláiste deiridh. I ngach cás cuirtear leis an méid a thugann an Stát do na coláistí trí tháillí na scoláirí. Do b'é £7.08 milliún an t-iomlán d'airgead reatha a íocadh mar dheontas leis an coláistí sa bhliain 1985.
Dhá bhliain a bhí sa tréimhse oiliúna do mhúinteoirí náisiúnta anuas go dtí an bhliain 1975. Sa bhliain sin rinneadh ceangal idir na coláistí agus córas na nollscoileanna chun go bhféadfaí céim ollscoile a bhronnadh ar na scoláirí ag deireadh a gcúrsa oiliúna, agus méadaíodh ar an dtréimhse oiliúna go dtí trí bliana. Faoin socrú sin agus ó thaobh céime de baineann Coláiste Oideachais Naomh Pádraig agus Coláiste Oideachais Bhantiarna na Trócaire — Dún Céirí — le hOllscoil Naisiúnta na hÉireann Coláiste Oideachais Mhuire Gan Smál le hOllscoil Náisiúnta na hÉireann, UCC, agus baineann na coláistí eile le Coláiste na Tríonóide. Tá an cúrsa bunúsach don chéim ar aon fhaid sna coláistí oideachais, trí bliana, ach bíonn difríochtaí éagsúla i struchtúr an chúrsa ó choláiste go coláiste.
Ins na seachtóidí deiridh agus isteach ins na h-ochtóidí bhí éileamh an-mhór ar mhúinteoirí náisiúnta agus rinneadh méadú ar líon na scoláirí chun freastal ar an éileamh seo.
Chomh maith leis an cúrsa trí bliana atá luaite agam bhí cúrsa bliana ann do chéimithe ollscoileanna gur theastaigh uathu bheith ina múinteoirí náisiúnta ag an chuid is mó de na coláistí oideachais. Sé an fáth a bhí leis an éileamh an-mhór seo ar mhúinteoirí náisiúnta ná go raibh ag an am sin roinnt mhaith oidí ag imeacht as an seirbhís ar pinsean agus araile.; méadú ar líon na ndaltaí a bhí ag tosú sna scoileanna náisiúnta agus sraith de fheabhsaithe ar an gcoibhneas idir daltaí agus múinteoirí rud a chabhraigh go háirithe le laghdú ar ranganna móra sna scoileanna. Chomh maith le sin do tharla ins na seachtóidí béim mhór ar oideachas speisialta as a d'fhás roinnt mhaith scoileanna agus ranganna speisialta timpeall na tíre ar fad. Sin an stair agus an cúlra a thógann muid go dtí an pointe atá faoi chaibidil againn inniu.
This scene has changed dramatically on all fronts. The year 1980 saw a peak in the annual number of births which has declined in each successive year since then. This decline is due to affect the population of children to be catered for in national schools, firstly, by slowing down the rate of increase in the primary school population and subsequently, if maintained, leading to a substantial decrease. Working on population and birth assumptions compatible with those used in the Central Statistics Office publication, Population and Labour Force Projections, 1986-1991, the total primary school population, while undergoing a small increase up to 1987-88, is projected to fall from that level by as many as 80,000 children by 1995-96.
It is not necessary for me to spell out the influence such a population trend is likely to have on employment prospects for national teachers. The second important factor which influences these prospects is the wastage rate from the profession itself. The number of teachers who would have to retire on age grounds remains at a low level, in the order of 140 or so each year for the next decade. Retirements for other reasons have also declined markedly in recent years. This may well be a reflection of the difficulty of finding alternative suitable employment outside of teaching but it is also influenced by the improved maternity leave provisions which facilitate married women teachers in continuing their professional careers while they are having families. Indeed the scarcity of jobs for national teachers in itself produces a constraint in that people who might have resigned their posts and left the profession for a few years if they were assured of an easy re-entry would no longer be inclined to do so.
My Department was not slow to recognise this situation and since 1981 have been taking steps to moderate the flow of qualified graduates from the training colleges. This is an area of high level manpower requirement where we cannot walk away from our responsibilities. Colleges of education produce graduates with a B.Ed. degree, the sole employment currency of which is the national school system in Ireland. The State has a responsibility in relation to supplying teachers to that system as well as responsibility for aiding the colleges which train them.
It would be a poor exercise of this responsibility to invite young people to spend their time and resource in attaining this specific qualification without a reasonable assurance of future employment in the national school system. Accordingly, the steps taken to meet this problem have consisted, firstly, in reducing and then suspending the one year post-graduate course in the colleges and reducing intake numbers to the B.Ed. degree course. These measures have resulted in a reduction of the student population from a high of some 2,600 at the peak period some ten years ago to a little over 1,800 at present. Despite these measures the assurance of immediate permanent employment in the schools which for so long accompanied the attainment of qualifications as a national teacher is no longer there. Of those who qualified in 1983, some 16 per cent are still without permanent posts. These are important statistics. The corresponding figures for 1984 and 1985 as of 25 February last are 42 per cent and 68 per cent. The latter figure throws into stark light the difficulties trained teachers are having in acquiring full time permanent posts. While the overall employment situation of recent graduates is eased considerably by the availability of longer term substitution work and of temporary posts in replacement of teachers absent on career breaks or for other approved reasons, it is abundantly clear that the intake to the colleges of education will have to continue to be at a very restricted level for some years to come.
The conclusion from all of this is, I believe, inescapable. The capacity of the three larger colleges of education is estimated at 2,500 student places. The student population in the three colleges together amounts to a little over 1,600 and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The hard fact of life is that we are maintaining at considerable cost to the taxpayer three major colleges of education for the initial training of national teachers when two would suffice to meet the present and future needs of the primary school system. To fail to recognise this fact or, having recognised it, not to take any action about it, at a time of scarce resources in education and scarce resources generally, would have amounted to a dereliction of duty on behalf of any Government and the Minister for Education. It is incumbent on all of us at such a time to seek to allocate the resources available to us in the most effective manner possible and nowhere is this more critical than in the realm of education.
The population bulge of the late seventies will lead to further expansion in the number of pupils to be catered for at the post primary level and in due course at the third level of education. At this latter level the Government are already committed to a programme of capital investment which, though large by any standards, will not suffice to meet the total projected demand for places in third level education in the nineties. It is in this context that the resources hitherto available to the Carysfort College must be reallocated and the role of the college itself redefined, subject to agreement with the management and the owners of the college.
The word "closure" is gone Minister, gone with Gemma.
Caithfidh mé a rá ag an bpointe seo gur cúis mhór bhróin dom go bhfuil na toscaí amhlaidh go gcaithfear críoch a chur le hoiliúint oidí bunscoile i gceann de na coláistí oideachais mhóra. Tuigim go bhfuil an brón céanna ar gach duine atá eolach faoi na coláistí seo agus faoin gcaighdeán sármhaith oibre a rinneadh iontu i gcónaí. Is mar theist ar na coláistí an dea-cháil atá ar a gcuid múinteoirí agus an bród atá orainn mar gheall ar dea-mhianach na múinteoirí sin. Tá sé seo fíor i leith gach ceann de na coláistí. Caithfidh mé a rá go speisialta i leith Choláiste Dhún Céirí gur eol dom go rímhaith dúthracht agus díograis Siúracha na Trócaire leis na blianta fada agus an dea-shampla den chéadscoth a thugadar i gcónaí i gcúrsaí uaisleachta agus i gcúrsaí foirfeachta do mhúinteoirí na tíre seo ó bunaíodh an coláiste i Sráid Bagóid in 1877 agus ina dhiaidh sin i nDún Céirí ó 1901. I rith an ama sin — tréimhse níos mó ná céad bliain — do thuill na traidisiúin a bhunaigh Siúracha na Trócaire buíochas an Stáit agus urraim agus meas na tíre i gcoitinne, idir mhúinteoirí, tuismitheoirí agus daltaí. Ba mhaith liom a rá go neamhbhalbh go gcreidim nach le dímheas d'aon tsórt ar an gcoláiste féin nó ar an sárobair a rinneadh ann in gcónaí a roghnaíodh Coláiste Dhún Céirí. Nuair a bhí sé socraithe nach leanfaí le bunoiliúint oidí náisiúnta i gcoláiste oideachais mór éigin tá mé cinnte nárbh fhurast in aon chor an coláiste a roghnú. Ba léir nárbh fhéidir an rogha a bhunú ar chomparáid idir fhiúntas acadúil na gcoláistí oideachais mhóra ó tharla iad uile ar aon chéim ó thaobh foirfeachta oibre. Tá mé deimhnitheach gur cuireadh toscaí uile an cháis san áireamh agus go ndearnadh dianmhachnamh ar an scéal ina iomláine sar ar deineadh an roghnú seo.
Ba mhaith liom leis tagairt do Choláiste Dhún Céirí i gcomhthéacs amháin eile. Mar is eol don Teach is é príomhdhualgas an mhúinteora náisiúnta teagasc a thabhairt in ábhair churaclaim na mbunscoileanna do dhaltaí a bhíonn ag freastal ar scoileanna náisiúnta. Is ceann de na hábhair sin an Ghaeilge — teanga náisiúnta agus príomhtheanga oifigiúil na tíre seo. Is ceann de dhualgais an choláiste oideachais mar sin, na scoláirí a ullmhú agus a oiliúint chun go mbeadh siad ábalta tabhairt faoin obair fhíorthábhachtach seo sna scoileanna. Níl aon dabht ná gur chomhlíon Dún Céirí an dualgas seo go críochnúil agus go dílis i gcónaí agus is mór an chreidiúint atá tuillte acu de bharr sin. Tá an Ghaeilge mar chuid bhunúsach riachtanach de oiliúint mhúinteoirí náisiúnta agus do fhorbairt iomlán an mhúinteora agus geallaim go gcaomhnófar go dílis an dearcadh sin san athchóiriú atá beartaithe anois.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the management, staff and students of Carysfort College for the very generous and warm reception extended to the Minister for Education and myself on our recent visit there. We had an opportunity, like Deputy O'Rourke, to be shown around the college and convent. The history of this remarkable building was outlined for us and we saw at first hand the old, new and ultra-modern facilities which the college has at its disposal. We also had an opportunity to have some brief discussions with members of the staff and to meet with the student body. The motion proposed by Deputy O'Rourke and Deputy Andrews is somewhat premature in that discussions have yet to take place. The amendment allows for proper discussions to take place regarding the future of Carysfort College, a future which I believe can play a major role in the education of our young people, brighter even than the glories of its long and distinguished past.
Once again I draw the attention of the Dáil to the amendment proposed by me to this motion. The facts which I have outlined and the further facts which will unfold as this debate progresses, clearly support the progressive amendment as put forward by me, rather than the motion proposed by Deputy O'Rourke and Deputy Andrews.
I move amendment No. 1:
1. To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann notes the action of the Government in rationalising the facilities for the education of primary teachers and in seeking, through discussion with the interested parties, to establish an alternative role in higher education for the Carysfort College, having regard to its structure and traditions, the expertise of its staff and the developmental requirements of education generally."
Deputy D. Andrews rose.
An order was made that Deputy Cosgrave was to conclude at 8.10 p.m. and that a Fianna Fáil member make a contribution from 8.10 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.
I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate and to support the amendment in the name of the Minister for Education. I wish both the Minister and the Minister of State success in their new briefs. The Minister has given a distinguished service in several other areas over the past long period and I have no doubt that he will do likewise in this Ministry. I have no doubt also that the Minister of State will bring his background prior to coming into politics to bear on a very important Department. I would like to express my gratitude to Carysfort College as a centre for education over the past 100 years or more. Its history was briefly outlined by the Opposition spokesperson. I would like to join with her in paying tribute to the long, distinguished role that Carysfort College has played in education. A debt of gratitude is due by all of us to the Sisters of Mercy and the staff for their good work which ensured that our young people got much of the basics right. I hope that this discussion will produce some ideas and will be a start in ensuring that Carysfort College maintains a role in higher education. We are all aware of the tremendous asset we have in the board of management, the staff and the physical college which was added to as recently as 1982. The college should be maintained for the benefit of the people. We must ensure that taxpayers' money will continue to be used. There is tremendous potential for the future of Carysfort College.
The Opposition spokesperson made proposals this evening. I hope the Minister and the people involved in Carysfort will explore every avenue in order to keep the college open for the benefit of the people. We are aware of changing needs in education and we must look at all the aspects including the vast sums of money spent on education generally. We must get the best return for our money. We must look critically at Carysfort which is a college that has tremendous potential. The resources provided as recently as 1982, the library, an auditorium, a sports centre, an audio-visual centre and lecture theatres should be used for educational purposes for the people coming onstream in the future. At the end of the day the people should be the winners. I am glad that both the Minister and the Minister of State went to the college last week to see the facilities for themselves. I attended the open day briefly lat week and it demonstrated the very good facilities which should be utilised. Everybody recognises the need for change. In getting the best for the people we should look at the educational facilities and at the Department of Education. We should have a complete review of the educational system.
The Deputy has five minutes left.
In reviewing education there should be discussions between the Department and everybody else involved. We are all aware that more jobs must be found and that fewer jobs will be found in some areas, so we must look at the broad spectrum of education in order to tackle this problem. I hope full consultations will take place between the staff, the students, the board of management and the Department to find the best solution. Staff are obviously concerned about their future and assurances have been given to them.
This debate should be used to produce new ideas. One suggestion made was in-service training. Discussions should take place to examine the options available and no one should enter discussions with a totally fixed mind. Obviously too many places are being provided in the three colleges. This necessitates change. I hope at the end of the day we will make the right decisions and I hope that Carysfort, in the words of the pamphlet I have received, will be working for Irish education.
I am beginning to wonder whether I am in Dáil Éireann or whether we should be here discussing the closure of Carysfort College on the basis that it should never have been suggested that it be closed. The contributions in both Irish and English in relation to this problem have appalled me. There is a bland dismissal of the reality that an effort was made by the former Minister for Education to close, on behalf of the Coalition Government, one of the best educational facilities not only on this island but in Europe generally.
It amazes me that people can come in here and talk about plans for discussions and meetings with the good nuns, the academic staff and the students. We should not be here at all tonight discussing this. There should never have been any motion before the House or any proposals in the first instance to close Carysfort teacher training college. The Government should address themselves to why, in the first instance, they proposed the closure of Carysfort at all. It may be that the Minister and his splendid and very good Minister of State on the way back from Carysfort last Friday to Government Buildings had some sort of Damascene conversion, that the light struck them.
The scales fell from his eyes.
I urge upon the Minister and his Minister of State to look at their amendment more closely, although a close examination of this amendment does not bring us all along the road on which this side of the House wants the matter to be brought. We want a rational plan for the continued, coherent application of the educational policies of Carysfort teacher training college. We ask the Minister and the Minister of State to address themselves to that. The staff and the students were shocked by the peremptory announcement of their colleague, now the Minister for Social Welfare, four weeks ago. Will they address themselves to that and why it caused such grave hardship and concern in that academy in Blackrock?
Having said that, I congratulate the Minister for Education and his Minister of State on their appointment to their present portfolios. I hope they will put this chapter behind them quickly and address themselves to other pressing problems in the area of education confronting this nation. In paying tribute to their appointments in their senior and junior portfolios let me also pay tribute to the Opposition spokeswoman on Education, Deputy Mary O'Rourke. She has shown one of the great strengths necessary in Irish political leadership, that is, consistency in her political repertoire. This strength was witnessed during this whole debate beginning four weeks ago. On television, radio, here in Dáil Éireann and outside the confines of Dáil Éireann, she has conducted a vigorous, articulate and intelligent campaign in the Carysfort cause. I do not want to let this occasion go by without conceding to her the laurels which we have achieved partly here this evening.
Four weeks ago the then Minister for Education curtly proposed the closure of Carysfort college of education and in so doing she fired another depressing broadside at Ireland's young population and especially her student population. If we are serious when we describe our young people as a great national asset, surely the case must be to reinforce, not to dismiss, Carysfort college as it is now and as it should continue, a recognised college of the National University of Ireland.
The Minister's curt decision also dismissed, with hint of neither reason nor policy, the teachers of the 110 year old college whose educational record has influenced almost every family in this country. It dismissed also the initiatives of the college staff put forward over two years ago for the development of third level education in Carysfort and the country as a whole, because the Carysfort issue cannot be separated from the vitality of Irish education as a totality. The Government's arbitrary and thoughtless attack on the college over the past four weeks is a direct assault on the quality of Irish education. The manner of the Minister's announcement was roundly and rightly condemned. It still disturbs me at least for two reasons.
The first relates to the fact that at the time of the announcement and over the past four weeks the Government gave no reason for their proposal to close Carysfort college. The whole affair has existed in a vacuum. The decision was summary and not located in any policy. Irish education surely deserves better.
A second cause of disquiet has been the treatment of the Carysfort community. What about the nuns, the staff, the students and those people who look after the confines of the college and its grounds? It is one thing to propose to close a facility but quite another to adopt an irresponsible method of communicating the decision. Moreover, to ignore the college development plan is to compound the casual attitude of the Minister with a lack of interest. In times of challenge if we ignore the creativity and initiative of our people, we as a people will never recover from our many present problems. Still, this is what the Government have been doing and have done again in relation to Carysfort. The way in which the decision on Carysfort was communicated to Carysfort is a reflection of what is going wrong in this country as a whole. The damage this Government are inflicting on our people is not only the result of a failed policy. It is sapping from our people whatever creative activity, vision and spirit of progress we have left. This is why the rigidity of the Minister's initial statement depressed me.
I hope the Government have learned at least one thing from the events of the past month. There are people out there who will not allow them to bury their heads in the sand and who will fight back, and fight a Government bent on depriving this country of all hope and initiative. Only last Friday the present Minister for Education seemed to continue the thoughtlessness of his predecessor. He should remember that the Taoiseach sent her to the oblivion of the Department of Social Welfare. I intend no disrespect to the Department of Social Welfare. I do not consider the shifting of Ministers from one portfolio to another as demotion. I see the service of a Minister in the service of the State as a tremendous privilege and whether you are in Social Welfare, Education or Finance it is all the same; you are still serving your country in whatever capacity the Taoiseach of the day wants you to, and so be it. However, she was sent, for want of a better word, to Social Welfare.
Last Friday Deputy Cooney went to Carysfort and was received with great courtesy by the President, Sister Regina Durkan, and the staff and students of the college. From what Sister Regina said in yesterday's The Irish Press it was clear that the visit was informal and that both parties agreed that no statement would be issued to the Press. It appears that the Minister went public and speculated on the future of the college. I stress the word “speculated” for it is quite clear that this issue will not be solved (a) while the Minister continues to disregard the openness of the Carysfort community and (b) while he continues to disregard the merits of Carysfort's case. A central part of this case is contained in our motion, and its bland dismissal by the respected Minister of State is not good enough. His amendment to our motion offers some hope, but it does not solve the problem, and concern remains as a result of the amendment.
We believe that our motion proposes the solution to the problem. In the area of pre-service training Carysfort has over 100 year's experience on which to draw and the present prognostication is that we may not have the same need for primary teachers in the future because of the decline in the birth rate. This experience must not be totally ignored but the teacher training element must be retained in the college. That is fundamental to the continuance in existence of this great college. They do not want it to remain totally as a teacher training institution; they want an important teacher training element retained in the college. Is that too much to ask? Is that too much to give? I say "may" because a declining birth rate is not a totally tenable argument for reducing the number of primary teachers. The question of teacher-pupil ratio must also be a consideration. We all know that especially in urban areas, there are thousands of children in classes of over 40 and even 50 pupils. That is a matter of fact and of record. One can imagine the damage being done to some of those pupils. That is not the fault of the teachers, the pupils, or the parents, but the fault of successive Governments which failed to see that one of the great solutions to the tragic disparity between pupil-teacher ratio is its reduction as a matter of national emergency.
I remember from a submission made to the New Ireland Forum, of which I had the honour to be a member, that we in the South would need between 4,000 and 5,000 extra teachers just to put us on a par with the pupil-teacher ratio of Northern Ireland. The Minister's arguments for a decline in the number of teachers are therefore spurious, untenable and unacceptable. As with everything else, this Government work backwards from the solution of most convenience, ignore the problem itself and end up making a mess of both.
A second aspect of teacher education is the in-service sector. This must be developed, although not to the exclusion of a pre-service facility at Carysfort. In-service education is a recognition of what every parent and teacher knows — that especially in recent years the role of the teacher has been changing at all levels. As parents and as legislators we must face this problem and try to cope with the new situation facing education. We have also our own problems; we have to distinguish between the Church and the State as legislators. We are coming to grips with that problem, although I never had any difficulties with it. Even the much discredited Building on Reality recognised the need to develop in-service stating “The up-dating and widening of teachers' skills throughout their careers is seen as a most important element in providing a modern and flexible education programme and in improving the quality of education generally.”
However, in this specific area as in so many others of Government policy, this document is as dead as the letters of it. It is not as if the Minister has been short of constructive suggestions. Fianna Fáil's so ably produced document, on primary education Education — The Early Years written by Deputy O'Rourke and published in 1984 advocated that surplus available capacity in the colleges of education be used to provide a comprehensive range of in-service courses and outlined in some detail a course in school management. As one might expect, there was no response from the Minister or from her Department at that time.
Also in 1984, Carysfort submitted to the Minister an extensively researched document on the development of the college. This was one of a series of responses submitted from the colleges in response to the Minister's Programme for Action in Education which had been published the previous January. Again, despite the fact that the Carysfort report reflected the vital resources and range of college, despite the fact that the college honestly and honourably responded to what should have been an important basis for discussion, there was no constructive response from the Minister. The Carysfort proposals were not even considered worthy of some serious and further exploration. All this yet again begs the question — are the Government really interested in education? Have they any sense of responsibility? Here we are, four weeks after the initial announcement was made with only a vague idea of the plans for the future of the facility, and for the present Minister's view that he has exciting plans for the college we must rely on a newspaper correspondent. I wonder what the Minister means by exciting? Is it physically exciting, emotionally exciting, mentally or intellectually stimulating? Certainly his excitement has not transmitted itself to this side of the House and I would not imagine that it has transmitted itself to the good people in Carysfort.
If the Minister proposes to introduce short term courses in this area, a policy feature that we have already in the area of youth employment, this is not acceptable. Neither is it acceptable that Carysfort should be detached from the other teacher education colleges or from the National University. If there is to be reform it must be in its only true context, that of Irish education as a whole. Carysfort College, no more than any of the other colleges, is not an educational ghetto. It cannot be cut off from its sister colleges. Moreover, from its pre-service base and experience it can develop its already existing in-service programme and diversify into other areas also.
In relation to its present in-service programme, Carysfort's diploma in the management of learning difficulties has been particularly successful. This is a two year course and addresses the need to acquire the necessary skills to help pupils who are failing for whatever reason, to develop intellectually, emotionally and/or socially. This course fits in with the oft repeated commitments of the previous Minister to remedial education. However, it is not enough to talk. There is a need for early intervention in this area and only such action can have the desired positive results for those children with learning difficulties. Similarly, the Carysfort in-service summer school shows the college's commitment to positive results. These courses range from the exploration of curriculum and methodology to review workshops for recent graduates and courses to examine classroom disruption.
These courses are not only a reminder of the expertise of the Carysfort staff but a reminder that all colleges and universities involved in Irish education must address these broader problems which have been increasingly thrown out by a changing society. The sorry thing about the Carysfort issue is that (a) the staff were and are willing to do this and have been rebuffed by the Minister for Education and (b) given the best situation in which the developed strategies to address these problems is a diversified one, that is, one which integrates pre and in-service courses with other areas such as technological education and computer resources, the Government are not only shunning expertise but turning a blind eye to the needs of a changing educational scene.
If the Government continue to dampen the initiative of its people, as in the case of Carysfort, it not only damages the credibility of Government at large but compounds that sense of alienation of which the Taoiseach likes to talk so often in relation to Northern Ireland. I wonder if he has looked in his own backyard lately, or into the schoolrooms of Ireland or the college campuses to which he occasionally likes to pay lip service? It is pointless trying to encourage Northerners to talk to us or trying to encourage foreign businessmen to invest here if the Taoiseach is losing credibility with his own people, particularly with our young people. The Minister's proposal on Carysfort is a catalyst of all this and the way in which the issue was handled by the then Minister, the lack of policy that it betrayed both in the long and short term least, shortsighted.
There is another shortsightedness of which the Minister and the Government have been guilty and that is shortsightedness in economic terms. At present, a total of £2.5 million per annum is paid to Carysfort, of which £0.5 million comes from student fees and higher education grants. Of the pay sector, £150,000 is paid out in pensions and the remaining £1.6 million goes out on staff pay. As £600,000 is returned to the Exchequer in PAYE, the net cost of running Carysfort is £1 million per annum. Are this Government suggesting that they will save £1 million in staff pay by insisting on the closure of Carysfort? Do they not realise that they may have a zero saving, given the cost of early retirement and redeployment, not to mention the legal case which undoubtedly the staff have and undoubtedly will face up to? This event becomes more unlikely having regard to the Minister's and the Government's amendment to the Fianna Fáil motion, but it is still there. Even in these areas, the legal and economic, the Government approach to this issue shows all the signs of having been taken very lightly. Again I stress it is only reflective of the type of management of this country since the Coalition took office.
The same lack of concern for the taxpayer is shown on the capital side. Carysfort College is reportedly valued at £20 million. If the Minister wants to develop the third level sector, it may, of course, be possible to build a much inferior facility for between £10 million and £15 million. The interest alone on such a venture would amount to at least £1 million per year. Do the Government expect the already hard pressed taxpayer to face that bill? The answer must be that the administration are not quite sure where they are, what they are doing and where they are going. On both the pay and capital side there will be a net loss to the State if Carysfort is closed or if the issue continues to be approached in a negative way.
Debate adjourned.