asked the Minister for Education if she has decided to restore discretion to parents and school authorities in relation to allowing students to repeat a second year at second level.
30.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Implementation of Education Circular.
60.
(Limerick East) asked the Minister for Education if she will give details of the savings which will accrue to her Department as a result of the implementation of Circular M8/88 relating to the rights of children to repeat a year.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 60 and 30 together.
In accordance with the terms of Circular M85/85 which issued from the Department of Education in 1985, the junior cycle was to be of three years' duration and the leaving certificate course be of two years' duration in all post primary schools. In accordance with the terms of Circular M8/88 which issued, a pupil may not repeat any year of the post primary courses, except with the prior approval of my Department. All such applications should be in writing and be forwarded through the principal of the school concerned.
In the 1987-88 school year my Department received 449 applications for repeat years and approved 334 of them — over 74 per cent. A total of 1,288 such applications have been received to date in the current school year and 80 per cent of these have been approved.
In so far as the present restrictions are concerned, I am satisfied that the current procedures and the guidelines in operation in my Department ensure equitable treatment.
It is not possible to provide details of any savings resulting in repeating a year of the post primary course, which in any case predated the circular referred to. Let me point out, even though this was not asked but it is implied in the question, that there will be no changes in the arrangements for a repeat of the leaving certificate as between last year and this year.
Let me ask two brief questions. First of all, will the Minister for Education tell us if she has sought the advice of the Attorney General in regard to the constitutionality of removing the discretionary right of parents and principals in respect of repeating a year? Secondly, is the Minister satisfied and what is her opinion that the charge for repeating a year is one that will create difficulties for those of lower economic means?
In relation to the Deputy's first question, the parent will consult with the relevant principal who, in turn, will forward an application to the Department. In regard to the Deputy's second question in regard to students from the lower socio-economic grouping seeking to repeat a year, let me say that following consultation with the IVEA that schools who run a complete remedial year or a year perceived to be such have been given a total concession. Secondly, when we receive applications from principals we do not inquire into the socio-economic backgrounds of the students concerned. They are all treated equally.
A Cheann Comhairle——
A final question.
For the sake of clarity in respect of Circular M8/88 which relates to the discretionary power taken by the Minister in the name of the State, is the Minister telling the House that she has not sought any legal opinion? My question to her was whether the opinion of the Attorney General was sought by her Department in regard to the constitutionality of the removal of the right of decision from parents to the Minister. Yes or no?
I have answered the question in that I have said——
The Minister did not answer this one.
This is a priority question and I address myself to Deputy Higgins. The parent will consult with the principal and an application will then be made to the Department by the principal of the school concerned.
Is the Minister presuming that the parents and teachers have ceded their rights to her? Is that the construction she is putting on the circular? Is that correct?
The matter does not arise.
That disposes of Questions, both ordinary and priority, for today.