I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to implement the proposals of the Green Paper Partners in Education published in November, 1985.
At the outset, I should like to mention some of the background factors which led to the publication of the Green Paper, Partners in Education, which was published in November 1985. It was not a document which was published in any haste. It was published after considerable debate and discussion within the Department and considerable study of factors which led to it as a logical development.
Some of those factors were the recommendation in the report of the Adult Education Commission of the establishment of local adult education committees; the recommendation in the report of the national youth policy committee, part of a comprehensive youth policy, that local youth committees should be established; the creation in recent years of a variety of programmes which were aimed at young people who were about to enter or who were already in the labour market. On the basis of that phenomenon there had just been created on a pilot basis a number of community training and employment consortia which were called COMTEC.
There was also the very welcome development of the vocational preparation and training courses in post-primary schools and they were receiving financial assistance from the European Social Fund. In the Programme for Action in Education, published in early 1984, there was a proposal that local co-ordination committees be established and the recognition of the need for a regional structure by the establishment in the voluntary secondary schools sector of county associations of school principals broadly in parallel with VEC areas.
Perhaps the main reason behind the publication of the Green Paper was the development of the Irish post-primary system over the past 20 years. As the House will be well aware, that development has led to the creation of a number of different types of schools. Despite their differences in areas such as management, they are all seeking to provide essentially the same education service to the same public. Up to the mid sixties the voluntary secondary schools and vocational schools provided services at post-primary level which were different in character and were different in emphasis. Since then, anybody observing the education scene will realise that, in fact, those differences have largely disappeared. Each type of school has developed within its own curriculum elements of the others.
One of the results of these developments has been that controversy has arisen between school authorities at post-primary level. That controversy, unfortunately, often relates to issues of school management rather than to educational considerations. For all those reasons it was important to seek new structures which would, on a regional basis, provide educational and other services for all second level schools and that the management of these schools would be local boards of management. That would eliminate friction which so often happens because of the management structure of schools. There would be a better framework for the rationalisation of post-primary facilities and for the delivery of other services. That, briefly, is the background to the Green Paper and the main reasons it was proposed to launch it in November 1985.
I turn now to the structure and role proposed by the Green Paper in its first part. It proposed local education councils. These would be councils for a specific geographical area. Side by side with the local education council there would be an individual board of management for each post-primary school. There would be 13 local education committees based roughly on a combination of local authority areas. At the back of the Green Paper was published a map of Ireland showing the proposed areas for the local education councils.
The structure of the local education councils was somewhat flexible. We were talking about 30 to 32 members who would be nominated as follows: ten to 12 from local authorities, depending on the number of authorities involved; five would comprise one representative from each of the following: youth services, training and manpower agencies, adult education agencies and economic interests including the social partners; five representatives of the authorities of voluntary secondary schools in the area; three representatives of the authorities of vocational, community and comprehensive schools; two parents of post-primary pupils, two post-primary teachers and three primary school representatives, one parent, one teacher and one manager.
The Green Paper went on to describe the vocational, community and comprehensive schools and suggested boards of management based on the community school model with three religious nominees, three LEC nominees, two elected teachers, two elected parents and one non-voting principal. There were some special arrangements suggested for the boards of the Protestant schools and the Jesuit comprehensive schools. The boards of management of voluntary secondary schools could consist of six representatives of trustees plus two elected parents, two elected teachers and two representatives of the LECs.
The LECs were to have the following functions: the provision, planning and development of second level education, including technical education in its region;. the provision of a general advisory and educational welfare service; the payment of teachers; the maintenance of second level schools, other than minor works; the payment of capitation and other grants to second level schools; the promotion of liaison and co-ordination between the primary and post-primary sectors; and providing advice in relation to the provision of new primary schools. That was the first broad area of their responsibility.
The second area was the provision and co-ordination of youth services; the provision and co-ordination of training schemes for young people in conjunction with other agencies such as AnCO, the Youth Employment Agency, CERT and the National Manpower Service — with the labour services Bill just published it makes it all the more important that there should be liaison at regional level; the provision and co-ordination of adult education in its region — at the moment the voluntary sector is almost entirely excluded from adult education and this seems a very poor arrangement when there is such an enormous demand for adult education. The last area which was tentatively suggested was that consideration might be given to the transfer of responsibility for the public library service to the local education councils.
Apart from the factors I mentioned as leading to the need to propose new structures there were, of course, financial implications. There have been fears that regionalisation might increase expenses rather than save the taxpayers' money. It was comprehensively established in the Green Paper that there would be enough compensatory factors in the proposals to neutralise, if not diminish, the expectation of greater costs. One of those was the rationalisation of the functions at present performed by 38 educational committees which deal with a relatively small number of schools — 250 second level schools. This would mean a more efficient deployment of VEC staff. In the Department of Education there would be savings in staffing levels if certain functions were distributed to the LECs and the undertaking of all management functions by individual boards of management.
As the House is aware, the VEC is the management body for vocational schools and any question requiring management input which arises in a vocational school must be referred to the VEC central office and that involves the staff there. Under the proposed LEC arrangement, each school would have its own board of management responsible for the day-to-day operation of the school and matters requiring the attention of the board would be referred to it and not to the LEC. It is proposed to set up adult education boards, local youth service boards and comtechs. If they were set up, they would require staffing. Obviously the establishment of LECs would provide an opportunity to achieve a rationalisation of additional staffing requirements. If the library service were included in the new LECs, no additional costs would be involved.
Obviously, in any proposed devolution of functions, the risk of duplicating the functions which are at present centrally administered would arise. It would be very important, therefore, that planning and budgeting and the work between the Department's inspectorate and education officers attached to the LECs be very carefully done to make sure there would be no overlapping.
Part II of the Green Paper deals with the ever topical area of the regional technical colleges and other colleges. This is very much in the news at present. There are comments in the newspapers and the Minister occasionally makes reference to proposed changes in the structure of the RTCs. In the Green Paper a new arrangement is set out for the RTCs to change their management structure to one of complete autonomy. I will talk about the reasons for that later.
The boards of the RTCs under the Green Paper proposal could be along the following lines: A chairperson and a principal, plus about 20 members as follows: five members nominated by the appropriate local education council in the region, one member nominated by each of the LECs, if any, in the RTC catchment area, two academic staff, one non-academic staff, two students, one nominee of the Minister for Labour and six appointed by the Minister. As regards the six appointees, the Green Paper said that the Minister would have regard to the extent to which industry, commerce, the professions and the trade unions should be represented. The proposed management structure of the RTCs was much simpler than the present structure. As the House will be aware, the RTCs are very much under the control of the local vocational education committee. The RTCs say they find this increasingly anomalous in this day and age. They say they need more freedom of movement to involve themselves in research, industrial liaison initiatives and generally to fulfil in a dynamic way the functions of a technological and education centre for the region in which they are placed.
Turning to the suggestions for the Dublin Institute of Technology, the Dublin colleges, the Green Paper reminds us that the Dublin Institute of Technology has six constituent colleges and in terms of its total enrolment is second only to University College, Dublin. The Green Paper proposed that the Dublin Institute of Technology would be established on a statutory basis in its own right. This is something the people involved in running the colleges have been seeking for some time. This statute might provide for a governing body of 26 members as well as an academic council along the lines of higher education institutions which would bring the colleges together and make sure there is complete co-ordination. The question obviously arises whether the Dublin Institute of Technology should become a designated institution under the Higher Education Authority. It was generally considered that the institute, because of its size, wide variety of courses in so many disciplines, its national rather than regional character and the relationship it already enjoys with University College, Dublin, in regard to the award of degrees should be quite different in character from the RTCs. The Dublin Institute of Technology has been developed to its present status by the City of Dublin VEC and it can be claimed that the VEC or the local education council for the City of Dublin should continue to be the institute's parent body. That debate is raised in the Green Paper.
The proposed board of management of the Dublin Institute of Technology is as follows: the board would consist of a chairperson and director, plus 24 members nominated for appointment as follows — seven members nominated by the City of Dublin Local Education Council, one member each nominated by the other LECs of Dublin which would consist of three members, three members from the academic staff of the institute, two members from the non-academic staff of the institute, two members from the students of the institute and one member nominated by the governing body of NIHE, Dublin, plus six members nominated by the Minister who obviously would have regard to the factors mentioned earlier in connection with LECs about the different groups of society which should have an input into the colleges including industry, commerce, the professions and the trade unions.
The recommendations in the Green Paper concerning the Dublin Institute of Technology were that it should be constituted as an independent institution by legislation. In acknowledgment of the involvement of the City of Dublin VEC and its development, significant representation on the governing body should be given to the City of Dublin VEC or the LEC which would represent the Dublin city area. There would be one overall director of the institute and six heads of colleges or schools who would be under and responsible to the director.
The RTCs and the Limerick college would be reconstituted so that each would have a much expanded and more independent board of management. The board would be a sub-committee of the appropriate LEC or VEC but its decisions would not be subject to confirmation by the parent body. The college budget would be paid through the VEC or the LEC and the institution would maintain its own accounts and recruit its own staff.
In the case of the Cork RTC, the schools of music and art would be incorporated into it. Each RTC would continue to have a college council as at present. As I said earlier, there were 13 LECs which caused, as expected, immediate controversy. The 13 areas were laid out in an attempt to be as logical as possible making sure that each one would have, as nearly as possible, the same number of schools and students under its aegis.
I wish to make some comments on the Green Paper and the thinking behind it. When it came out some reactions were that it was a reflection on the Vocational Education Act, 1930, but of course, as we are all aware, the 1930 Act has served the country extremely well over the last 50 plus years. The testimony of experience is very eloquent to the vision of those who framed it and it has stood the test of time. It was flexible and far reaching and that flexibility is one of its greatest strengths. Therefore, one might ask if the Act is so flexible why should we think of changing it. Of course the proposals put forward in the Green Paper did not imply a repeal or a complete change in the 1930 Act. The Green Paper envisaged that it would be a development rather than an abandonment of the 1930 Act. Indeed, it also envisages — which would be a very good idea — that much of the detail of the 1930 Act should be incorporated into any new legislation.
To get back to the problems which have been thrown up as the post-primary sector has developed in its diversity in recent years; we have a system of post-primary schools whose different structures do not always harmonise, to put it mildly. As Deputies are aware, right across the country there has been, unfortunately, more emphasis on competition between post-primary schools rather than the co-operation required if the needs of our young people are to be met adequately. I hope this Minister will not run into too much of it but I expect her to be embroiled in some of it. As Minister I was greatly distressed by very bitter divisions which had shattered communities and left them locked in argument about the relative merits of community schools and colleges. It was a great shame that in many cases very worthy and necessary building projects were held up for years while the best efforts of Ministers, local representatives, Department officials and all their skills were unable to bring the factions together. The sad part about it is that there are so many similarities between the two categories of schools in terms of the educational programmes they offer. The differences, distinctions and the trouble that arose centred on issues of control and management. It amounted to very painful power struggles which were in nobody's best interests, least of all those of the children. Obviously, in many of these cases, a decision must finally be made and it is usually the unfortunate Minister who has to make that decision in the end which, in the circumstances of community division, leaves one faction aggrieved and disappointed no matter how much the Minister may try to mollify them. A climate like that for starting a new school in any community should be a beacon of hope and unity. It is a shame that many schools have had to begin their new life in an atmosphere of acrimony and division in a community.
The proposals in the Green Paper certainly seek to overcome this problem and essentially it will be overcome by bringing people together and eliminating the distinctions between these two types of school. We must offer greater prospects for harmony within communities who could then more freely celebrate the excitement of the provision of new school facilities. Of course it will not mean the elimination of all differences between schools. The two categories, public and private, would remain. The idea of a publicly owned school is now well established and should be retained albeit with some changes in terms of management control. Likewise, the concept of the voluntary school is a very long established one and to change this would be to tamper in the area of rights guaranteed under the Constitution and which I certainly respect.
I do not think there is any large public demand for fundamental changes of this character anyway. Apart from that very serious problem of the division between the communities while children wait for their educational facilities to be provided for them, a second problem must be addressed. This is the adequate delivery structure that must be developed to deliver services which are allied to the mainstream education programme. Adult education, youth services, co-ordination of education and training, these are all areas which are alive and which are progressing. While it may be argued that an appropriate structure exists in the form of VECs, one very frequently hears the view expressed that VECs naturally cannot be seen as totally neutral parties, that they are naturally identified with their own schools. Rightly or wrongly, it has been suggested that they have by their very nature an inbuilt bias in favour of a minority of schools and would not be in a position, therefore, to provide services naturally and objectively to all. I do not imply that I accept that there is such bias, but the fairly widespread perception in this regard cannot be ignored. Indeed, the Costello Youth Policy report recognised that difficulty in the context of their consideration of what would be an appropriate parent body to which the new Youth Services Board should relate.
In the Green Paper it was proposed that local education councils would stand neutral in relation to all post primary schools in the sense that they could not enjoy a particular relationship to just one kind of school. There are two problems whose solutions might be found in the context of the Green Paper. Those problems alone perhaps would not justify the need for new structures, but in the search for solutions to those problems we certainly find issues being raised which help to point in the general direction of establishing LECs. One of the factors which points to the proposals is the way in which the different categories of schools have been moving towards each other. The historical situation which gave rise to differences between them is in many respects irrelevant now. All post primary schools pursue similar goals. They cater by and large for similar pupils and they follow courses which lead to the same examinations. This suggests that the differences in the systems are becoming increasingly anomalous.
The chief rationale for the new proposals in the Green Paper, which was greeted with mixed reactions when published, might be found in its title, and I remember taking considerable care to arrive at a suitable title. The full title was "Partners in Education serving Community Needs"; that is what the Green Paper was all about. It was seeing how a Minister and the Department of Education in the very best interests of the whole community, in the interest of providing a first class quality of service to the full community, would set about taking precedence over all sectional or vested interests. That was the quest which I set out upon and that was the whole reasoning behind the Green Paper — serving the community and partnership. Above all, in serving the community, a sharing, a drawing together of the various interest groups so that collective wisdom, experience and strength could be pooled to provide an efficient and effective service. Sharing and partnership imply give and take, generosity and openmindedness. The various groups involved in education have obviously a distinctive contribution to make, without any of them dominating.
There are very serious reasons that consideration should be given very quickly by this Government to implementing the proposals of the Green Paper as the motion calls for. We have heard reports in recent days not confirmed or denied by the Minister. In particular I refer to a report in yesterday's Irish Independent, on the top of the front page, about the abolition of vocational education committees in order to save money. Such an ad hoc procedure implied by that kind of approach would be most regrettable. It must be approached in a national perspective. The work is already done. The difficulties and the phenomena which caused publication of the the Green Paper have been identified; the discussions have been held. I well recall considerable discussions being held in the Department and submissions received. The Minister will be well aware that all that documentation, skilfully interpreted for her by her Department, is there at hand.
Perhaps normally one might expect that it would take some years to go through a process like this of establishing what the problem was and gradually coming to look at a whole range of solutions, but that process has been undertaken already and that has been done. There is no need to hold back. The time to act is now because day by day while these divisions and waste of resources continue our young people are suffering in their education. Recently statements were reported about rationalisation and amalgamation of second level schools sharing resources. I am sure the Minister is already aware but, if not, I warn her that when one starts talking about amalgamation or sharing of resources, unfortunately one always brings up the same divisive power struggles and despite the great resourcefulness of the Minister and her determination to consult all the time, which every Minister shares, some of these problems have to be faced up to in the end by the Minister taking a decision.
There were many and diverse reactions when the Green Paper was first published. Many of the reactions were instantaneous, which was rather a pity, but in the media world in which we live one is telephoned for a reaction and one is inclined to give one. There were some positive reactions to it and in particular I want to quote in part the editorial in The Irish Times of 12 November:
Organisationally, post-primary education has been in a mess for some time. There are five different types of post-primary school, each with a different management structure. Vocational schools compete with secondary schools which, in turn, compete with community schools; courses and facilities are duplicated, and energies which would be better utilised in improving the quality of general educational provision locally are wasted in pointless rivalries. So absurd is the situation that one town is being provided with both a vocational and a community school, despite widespread agreement that only one school was needed.
The editorial goes on in that vein generally to applaud this initiative and says that the proposed reform is long-overdue.
The reactions were not all like that. Every group, it seemed at the time, had something to say, often contradicting each other and disagreeing with the Green Paper for completely different reasons. That in itself was a testimony to the need for action. Faced with an area so fraught with conflicting views, it is tempting for a Minister to play safe, play dumb and do nothing. When the situation cries out for action which can only be approached by a Minister, it is time for that Minister to tackle a very unsatisfactory position. She should keep right in the forefront of her mind the interests, above all, of the consumer, the young person who depends on the education system for the most valuable support that the State can give — the best possible education system.
The interests of these young people and, ipso facto, the interests of the country are not served by the present divisions and differences in a country as small as Ireland where energies and skills are being used to further the interests of each group at second level — witness the divisive campaign between the voluntary and vocational sectors during the recent election campaign. Accusation and counter-accusation were flung across the pages of the media about which sector got better treatment. Neither is the taxpayers' interests served by such a plethora of management and administrative structures, each using up resources in their own area. The administrative costs alone of the 38 vocational education committees amounted to £11 million according to a reply which the Minister gave today to a written question put down by me. Therefore, it seems totally logical to ask the Government to build on what has been set out, tested and researched and to act on that. I hope the reaction of public representatives to any change in their function — in this case their functions on VECs — will be very thoughtful.
It is a sad reflection that when the Green Paper was published unfortunately one of the reactions of the Minister was to accuse me of trying to get at the Fianna Fáil-controlled VECs after the local elections in 1985. The Minister has now been elevated to a position of immense responsibility and I am sure she can see the real reasons behind the Green Paper. It was a strong and logical attempt to tackle a chaotic situation which the longer it is left alone will impede progress towards unity and strength in the Irish educational scene.
