Vol. 419 No. 7
10 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to the contents of the booklet issued by the National Parents Council entitled The Cost of Free Education; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
18 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to the contents of the booklet issued by the National Parents Council entitled The Cost of Free Education; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
51 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to the contents of the booklet issued by the National Parents Council entitled The Cost of Free Education; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
53 Mr. O'Brien asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to the contents of the booklet issued by the National Parents Council entitled The Cost of Free Education; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
61 Mr. G. Reynolds asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to the contents of the booklet issued by the National Parents Council entitled The Cost of Free Education; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
91 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to the contents of the booklet issued by the National Parents Council entitled The Cost of Free Education; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
93 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to the contents of the booklet issued by the National Parents Council entitled The Cost of Free Education; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
94 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to the contents of the booklet issued by the National Parents Council entitled The Cost of Free Education; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 18, 51, 53, 61, 91, 93 and 94 together. I am aware of the publication of The Cost of Free Education booklet by the National Parents Council.
As Deputies will know the day-to-day running costs of primary schools are discharged by making funds available by means of the capitation grant scheme and the contribution from local sources. The capitation grant is not intended to meet the operating costs in full. A local contribution towards school running costs equivalent to 25 per cent of the capital grant must be lodged annually to each school bank account.
On the matter of adequacy of the capitation grant generally, my Department are currently undertaking study of the recurrent costs of operating schools in the primary and post-primary sectors. I will be considering the existing rates of capitation grants in the light of the results of this study.
In addition to the capitation grants scheme my Department provide further assistance to primary schools in disadvantaged areas. The amount provided in 1992 under the scheme for schools in such areas is £1.6 million.
Would the Minister agree that the primary school sector is grossly underfunded when compared with our EC partners leaving us at a disadvantage? Would he agree that most staff in primary schools spend a great deal of time on fund-raising activities? I know of teachers who spend most of their free time fund-raising. Monday nights there are card drives, on Tuesday nights, bingo, on Wednesday nights a quiz, on Thursday nights a bazaar and perhaps a concert on Friday nights. Staff time is taken up with such fund raising activities because the Government are failing in their duty to provide adequate funding. Can the Minister inform the House of the last increase in the capitation grant and when does he expect to increase it further?
The Deputy is raising some separate matters.
I am not satisfied at the level of capitation grants for primary schools, which is now £28 per pupil. Another 25 per cent, £7 per pupil, has to be provided locally. I would like to avail of this opportunity to publicly acknowledge, thank and salute the work of parents, voluntary groups, religious, parishes and everybody concerned with the non-State funding of our primary schools system. They make a substantially greater contribution than has been generally recognised. For example, I note in The Cost of Free Education booklet by the National Parents Council that in 20 per cent of Dublin schools parents contribute 50 per cent or more of the funds. We would like to be able to provide more funds but I am constrained because of lack of resources and I have to examine how I can approach that problem. In attempting to approach the problem we must first recognise its existence and we must recognise that without the great work of the non-State sector in primary and national school systems we would be in a very difficult situation. In my time as Minister for Education I will make every effort to see how I might improve the situation, but I do have resource hurdles to overcome.
Would the Minister accept that the local contribution made by parents is not just 25 per cent of the capitation grant but that the capitation grant is only about 25 per cent of the cost of running a school? Can he give some indication as to when the study to which he referred will be completed and specifically whether it will be completed on time for him to make a decision to increase the capitation grant in advance of the coming school year?
It would be unfair to give any guarantee for the coming school year. All I can do today is acknowledge that I understand the problem. For example, I am aware insurance premiums have risen. That is an enormous burden on many schools and energy costs and so on can fluctuate. The primary education review body report suggested that a sum of £80per capita would be more in tune. I am saying this quite openly because I understand the difficulties and I know the figures are not adding up for many national schools. I am giving this matter my utmost attention but in doing so I do not want to raise expectations. My aim today is to acknowledge that all the evidence suggests that without the input from the non-State sector many primary schools would have great difficulty. I appreciate their contribution to the State and to the children in the system. I will continue to examine how I can help in that regard.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the constitutional requirement which states that the State shall provide free primary education and that the purpose of this requirement of the Constitution was to ensure equality of education. Would the Minister agree that the fact that Ministers are not adhering to the Constitution is creating enormous disparities between the type of schools, the standard of schools and the equipment of schools in well heeled areas as opposed to the severely deprived areas?
Under a number of headings special provisions are being made for disadvantaged areas. For example, extra allotments of remedial teachers and extra allotments of teachers generally and a number of schemes are specially targeted at the disadvantaged. Lest I give the wrong impression I should point out clearly that the State currently pays some £450 million for the salaries of those in the primary school system. While I accept the criticism about the free aspect of the primary school system, I should say it is substantially free.
Deputy Mac Giolla rose.
Sorry, Deputy. Deputy O'Shea is offering.
Would the Minister not agree that in the present situation, where niggardly provision is made for a small number of disadvantaged schools, the Department are institutionalising those caught in the poverty trap? Where there are means available to parents in the catchment area of a school extra curricula activities can be provided, so that we cannot talk about increasing the grant in isolation. A large number of people on the poverty line come from areas of educational disadvantage. Many of these areas are not in the disadvantaged areas scheme so that in terms of social equity the Government are failing these children.
We are having a speech.
I reject that approach. My task is to raise the contribution to less well off schools, not necessarily to lower the contribution to other schools who can provide greater local contributions. We have to increase the contribution to the less well off schools. We do this by means of the various schemes to which I have already referred and by examining the capitation grant.
A final question from Deputy J. Higgins.
As Deputy Mac Giolla has pointed out, Bunreacht na hÉireann states quite specifically that the State shall provide for free primary education. As the Minister acknowledges, it is a myth. Surely there is a need to target specific resources to do away with the glaring anomalies and disparities that have arisen for poor areas. If you are in a poor school you cannot have speech and drama, music, modern languages, swimming and you cannot go on a school tour because you cannot afford it. Surely there is a need for specific resources in areas identified as needing urgent targeting.
Yes, we are doing a substantial amount of that by targeting the disadvantaged schemes to the disadvantaged areas. The country has been bedevilled with constitutional debate and constitutional argument for some time and I do not intend to dwell on it too deeply. The constitutional requirement of the State is to provide education.
Free.
Yes. Whether drama, music, swimming and those type of activities are included in that definition would keep constitutional lawyers busy for many a long day. As I said earlier, my own particular philosophy is not necessarily to keep down the areas that can provide these extra curricular activities but to try to target and streamline resources into the areas that cannot afford them. We are doing that by means of the various schemes of which the Deputy is aware.
Question No. 11 please.
