I will address the issue of the pupil-teacher ratio. In the present year 325 teaching posts have been authorised to reduce the class size in primary schools, in post-primary schools 250 teaching posts have been sanctioned and 120 schools in disadvantaged areas have been provided with extra teachers. Even though the country has gone through some very difficult times financially, when every sector and Department was asked to cut back on public spending programmes, the Minister for Education has managed to keep education centre stage.
There is a primary review body and a primary curriculum review body in place which involves all those interested and expert in primary and post-primary education. Reports have been published and we are now entering a period within which a wide ranging debate is allowed. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment propose changes in the syllabuses at the junior level of secondary education and these changes have been introduced in an ordered, systematic way with the least amount of disruption. I detect from this Bill that it seems to come down with an axe, I suppose Deputy Higgins would say, in a radical way to try to change the whole system. This goes completely against the approach of the Government who want to deal with the development of education in an ordered way. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment will continue their work at the junior certificate level and will then go on in an ordered way to the senior cycle. For that reason I am amazed that the Fine Gael Bill refers to the establishment of a curriculum review board. What was the reason for that? Such a proposal is ill-conceived and does not allow for any recognition of the work of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
It has been pointed out that additional funding was provided for schools in disadvantaged areas. Tha funding was increased by 300 per cent since 1987. Initiatives to develop the home/school links scheme at primary and post-primary levels have been put in place. That is one aspect in which I have a particular interest. I spoke before on the need to maintain support structures between the home and the school.
Very much related to that requirement is the issue of the school attendance service in the Dublin region. I would remind my colleagues that a school attendance service exists within Dublin city but in the county that matter is dealt with by the Garda Síochana. I hope my proposal to have one school attendance service is included in the Education Bill. Perhaps its name might be changed from a school attendance service to a support type structure for the city and county of Dublin. I do not consider it appropriate to have a garda calling to a person's home about this matter. I do not wish to take away from the work of the gardaí but it would be more appropriate that such work be given to people involved in education and the social services.
I mentioned one glaring anomaly in relation to the Ballymun area. Part of the flat complex in Ballymun is in the city area and the other part is in the county. The school attendance service operates in one region while, within the same flat complex, the gardaí deal with the issue. Surveys have shown that the problem of non-attendance at school results from many serious social problems such as drink problems in the home, drugs and violence, and, obviously, it is a matter that has to be dealt with by those with skill and expertise. The Minister, in the Education Bill, should tie into the excellent progress that has been made in the home links service the problem of school attendance and, perhaps, amalgamate those involved in the school attendance service with those operating in that area. I gather, from speaking to some of my teaching colleagues, that the home links service, which is now operating in 80 schools, is working well in disadvantaged areas. I hope that the Education Bill will co-ordinate some of those excellent activities.
I have much respect for Deputy Higgins, having listened to his many contributions on education in the House, but I find his Bill to be clinical in its approach to a subject which of its nature is subjective — it is child-centred, student centred. Deputy Higgins put forward a Big Brother centralised system — he may wish to correct me when he replies next week — that would involve continuous monitoring, preparation of reports and regulations. The Bill lacks a humane approach. In many respects it is quite insulting to the teaching profession and to the quality, style and substance of the education system, which is child oriented and personality centred. In fact, it scarcely refers to the pupil.
Deputy Higgins is attempting to steal much of the Minister's educational work in that he refers to the provision of a school psychological service. Deputy Higgins knows that a pilot psychological service for primary schools was established in the Tallaght-Clondalkin area and in south Tipperary, involving about 28,000 pupils. I supported and lobbied for that system and have no doubt, when evaluated, it will be expanded.
Other issues in which he appears to have taken the lead from recent developments are the special emphasis on disadvantaged areas, to which I have already referred, and the parental involvement in management. The Minister asked school management boards to ensure that parents' associations are formed. Deputy Higgins also knows that, following the local elections vocational education committees were asked to ensure that parents and teachers were appointed to new vocational education committees. I understand that there has been a good response to that request.
The Minister places emphasis on the individual school and its significance within the educational process. Management authorities must be given more autonomy to make decisions within certain parameters. That trend is taking place worldwide. I cannot understand why the Fine Gael Bill does not follow worldwide trends.
Many of our schools are creative centres of activity but the Bill fails to recognise the creativity of teachers and their initiative. If accepted, the provisions of the Bill would stifle initiatives being taken locally. The Government's view is to unlock the energies within what is a bureaucratic centralised education system. They are doing that, and I agree with that approach. Unfortunately, the Bill adopts the opposite approach. It adopts a very negative approach towards teachers; does not seem to appreciate the total commitment given by the vast majority of teachers; seems to distrust the profession; seems to consider that there is a need for constant surveillance and monitoring from Marlborough Street. Such a policy would, I believe, have a serious effect on the morale of the profession, which has attracted high-quality people. Irish teachers are held in high regard internationally. I have found that to be so from any contact I had with people outside Ireland who are interested in education and observing our educational system. Indeed, they have observed at first hand the ability of young Irish people working abroad who have come through the Irish education system. I have no doubt that that is accepted across party lines.
Among other things, education is about building the confidence of young people. That has been happening in Ireland and is evident abroad when one witnesses the confidence of many of our young people working away from home. There is no doubt that they hold their own with people from around the world. The system we have is evolving from the bottom upwards. Fine Gael would seriously damage and reverse the process if they got their hands on the system operating from Marlborough Street and had the opportunity to put the Bill in place.
Certain obvious needs have arisen within the system. Deputy Higgins referred to that in his speech. There is all-party agreement on the need for in-service training, although I consider the word "retraining" to be more appropriate. Any system needs constant renewal and to be refreshed. Teachers, because of the nature of their profession, must be provided with such retraining. I am very pleased that the Minister has made that commitment, which I hope will be part of the Education Bill.
When talking about the process of rejuvenation and refreshing, I should like to mention the career break scheme, which has been referred to by Deputy O'Shea. It has to be repeated that the career break option, which is, in effect, the process of giving teachers the option to leave the profession temporarily from one to five years, has been one of the most useful mechanisms for renewal and revitalisation. It has been shown by surveys — and it is a well established fact — that stress and fatigue are very common complaints among the teaching profession. Indeed, many of my colleagues in the profession took career breaks and benefited in a very positive way in that it allowed them to "recharge their batteries". Those who are critical of the length of teachers holidays should bear that in mind before criticising the teaching profession. They should put themselves into the role of the teacher and consider how they would cope. They should even drop down to their local school to see at first hand how concentrated is the role of the teacher and how skilful and prepared teachers have to be to carry out their responsibilities to the best of their ability.
There is no other job I know of that calls for more concentration or effort on the part of the mind and body than does teaching. The career break option, allowing this chance of renewal, has given some teachers an opportunity to branch out into other careers. That is something I welcome also because there were many teachers who had much to offer the teaching profession but who discovered that they needed some other outlet. Let us face it, by their leaving the teaching profession they have created employment opportunities for others badly in need of jobs.
There has been reference in the debate, and in this Bill, to the provision of support for interdenominational education. That is something I would support provided it comes from the bottom up and the demand exists within the community. It has been suggested in certain debates in Northern Ireland that if groups of Catholics and Protestants were integrated in the one school, taught within an interdenominational system, all of their problems would be eliminated. I am convinced that that would not constitute a panacea for the ills of Northern Ireland. If such demand evolves locally it should be encouraged but we must remind ourselves that merely because a school may be Catholic or Protestant does not mean that it promotes hatred or division; on the contrary.
Let us look at our national school curriculum, in particular at our religious course, which is one geared primarily at educating children on how to be good Christians, how to respect one's neighbour, one's environment and surroundings generally. I am aware that a similar regime applies in Protestant schools in my constituency. School systems evolve, expand and grow from a natural tradition and culture. The Minister and Government provide grant aid to the local community who, in many ways, match that contribution resulting in a system that works.
It is unfortunate in some ways that one is seen to be conservative if one supports the existing educational system of Catholic, Protestant or other religious schools but progressive if one supports nondenominational or interdenominational schools because there is room for both.
I might revert to the point I made earlier that such systems must evolve rather than be imposed. If there is demand within a local community for non-denominational or interdenominational schools, then let us support their establishment just as successive Governments have supported the establishment of all-Irish schools following on community initiatives. Any discussion on Northern Ireland suggesting that the imposition of a new, mixed educational system there would wipe out the hatred and bitterness is somewhat simplistic. That would be an unnatural way of stretching the limitations of the educational system in Northern Ireland.
We must remember it is a political system that runs Northern Ireland, an administrative system which rules young people after they leave school and endeavour to get a job. It is that system that must be overhauled. If that political system was overhauled — and God knows we anxiously await some radical breakthrough in that connection — peace and stability would prevail in that troubled region. Let us think of the potential for future generations if such were to happen. I repeat that it is too simplistic to suggest that a mixed educational system would solve the ongoing problems and strife within Northern Ireland. Rather it is the politicians who must take responsibility squarely on their shoulders. Unless they act very soon they will not be thanked. Indeed, rather will they be condemned by future generations for the intransigence and stagnation they have allowed to prevail.
I must pay special tribute to RTE on the transmission of three recent educational programmes. It was an excellent series which was a revelation, demonstrating clearly the priority afforded education in this country. That message came across loud and clear, first, through the fact that the significant contributions of all those who participated in the programmes were of such a high standard and, second, the fact that the programmes attracted an audience of approximately half a million people. That does not surprise me because Irish people are enormously interested in education and want to participate in its development and future. They can be reassured from those programmes that our educational system is in safe hands. It was evident that there was a consensus across the board on the part of the Minister, teachers, parents and experts that progress has been made over the years and that there were sound policies in place to deal with the challenges lying ahead. That series of programmes demonstrated clearly the value of public sector broadcasting. I would urge the Minister to ensure that the provision of a properly structured educational broadcasting service be included in the Education Act because the public have spoken on this matter.
I thank Deputy Jim Higgins for allowing me, as somebody interested in education, to participate in this debate. I have spelled out my reservations about the Bill but at least Deputy Higgins has afforded us this opportunity. I would ask him to have a rethink on his approach. I might suggest that the message from the Minister and this side of the House is that we want power given back to the people involved in education, which is the course we will pursue.
