Earlier I referred to the valuable data collected by the education convention which resulted in the publication of a comprehensive report. Professor John Coolahan and all those involved in the compilation of the report were deservedly warmly congratulated at that time. They placed on record and set out for our scrutiny an analysis of all the issues of concern to a modern nation seeking to modernise its system of education. Hot on the heels of the report we now have the long awaited White Paper. The culmination of this debate will be the acceptance or rejection of the proposals in the White Paper. It is vital that the decisions arrived at by us prove to be the correct ones for our people.
I welcome the publication of the White Paper. Broadly speaking many of the recommendations in it will find widespread acceptance and will not be challenged by me. Before I address the contents of the document I must say I share the reservations expressed by others regarding the cost of its publication. If it is true that the launch of the White Paper cost in excess of £250,000, then we are off to a bad start. As the Minister gave us that figure it must be accurate, but I am sure there are many Deputies who find that unacceptable. I can think of a half a dozen primary schools in my constituency where the accommodation needs well into the next century would be more than satisfied if that amount were made available to them. Likewise, that money could have provided an additional dozen badly needed remedial teachers during the next year. That would have improved the lot of hundreds of educationally disadvantaged students for at least one year. Doubtless those schools and parent groups who are presently put to the pin of their collars would have found good use for that amount of money, but I have no doubt that those I mentioned, together with all those who consider they are underfunded, will appreciate the quality finish of the post-launch copy. I am sure they will also treasure the full colour photograph of the Minister which precedes the foreword should they be fortunate enough to secure a copy. Given the range of legislation contemplated by the Government, we can rest assured that at least Irish photographers will be in secure employment for some time to come. As study of the document was conducted using the original launch copy I was not distracted too much by the graphic illustrations and the glossy pictures. I had time to study the facts in black and white and despite that they made interesting reading.
The identification of quality, equality, pluralism, partnership and accountability as the guiding principles of this State's approach to education is good. It is time for us to place emphasis on each of them. We have established quality in our education system for many years past. However, quality control is an established practice in most fields today and education, above all else, deserves to be hallmarked. I am sure all those involved in it wish that to be so.
Regarding equality, although great efforts have been made in the past there are still many areas where much still needs to be achieved. We have made great strides towards full equality of the sexes and our schools and colleges have played a vital role in helping to eliminate discrimination of that nature. Yet, there are many in our society who are disadvantaged on physical, mental or socio-economic grounds. I very much welcome any commitment by the Government which will level the playing pitch for all our children regardless of their abilities or backgrounds. Pluralism is perhaps the buzz-word of the 1990s. In the context of education it is the most often quoted and most widely misunderstood word in use today. The recent and regrettable public controversy between the Minister and church authorities has led many in our society to believe that pluralism means lessening the influence of our churches in the education of our young. That is unfortunate. While education should always be a subject for continuing analysis, it should never be the cause of unseemingly public squabbling. There is far too much at stake for any party to take issue with another on a matter of personal pride. I am glad the role played by our churches and the vocational education committees in the service of education is publicly recognised in the document. The part played by them and by any others in the fine framework on which we will build for the future must never be forgotten.
Partnership is the key to success in any venture. The Irish proverb "ar scath a chéile mairimid" is perhaps more relevant in education than in any other facet in life. Pupils, parents, educators and managers all must play their part in creating a vibrant effective system. All have rights and they must be recognised and promoted by the State. Each also bears responsibilities and one of the outstanding features of the national education convention was that the various parties while showing themselves to be conscious of the rights of others also displayed a firm commitment to their responsibilities. We must give all partners proper support mechanisms which will help them shoulder their burden of responsibility while at the same time safeguarding their rights.
Accountability has become something of a sacred doctrine in recent years and rightly so where education is concerned. In 1995 the State will invest £2 billion of taxpayer's money in education. That is a large sum for a country of our size and it is our duty to ensure that we get the best value possible for all concerned. While I am satisfied that is largely the case, it must be seen by everyone to be the case. The Government's approach to the publication of the White Paper may well be an aberration in expenditure, but we must be vigilant where aberrations of that type are known to exist. The public will demand that of us and that is their right. Of all the governing principles enshrined in that document, accountability will be the one which will arouse the greatest level of public interest.
Our Constitution recognises the rights of all parents as prime educators of their children. Since the majority of parents choose to send their children to school, it is our duty as Members of the Oireachtas to ensure the State offers suitable education to our people. The provision of education may be broken down into four main areas, primary, second level, higher and further education. Excellent structures have been in place in all those areas for many years, but there is also much room for improvement. The process of improving structures and facilities has been ongoing for the past number of years. While Minister of State at the Department of Education, with my colleague, Deputy Brennan, I guided legislation on higher education through this House. The White Paper is yet another link in the chain of events in which we have all played a part.
I do not propose going through the provisions of the White Paper page by page. Rather, I will make some general observations about its content. With 500,000 children currently attending primary level, that must be a target area for development. I welcome the commitment in the White Paper to extend the availability of pre-school services and note with interest the attention that will be paid to the Child Care Act, 1991 which lays down regulations governing all services offered in this area. I welcome the expanded role of the State in the early start programme. I also welcome the intention to integrate into the system the children of our travelling community and the promise to improve conditions for those with special needs who have not been treated equally up to now.
While the rights of all our children must be recognised as soon as possible, will the Minister ensure the necessary supports are put in place in our primary schools? It is pointless paying lip-service to the notion of improving the lot of those who truly deserve our care if, in reality, the practical difficulties are mainly ignored. While each education board fulfils its statutory responsibilities by writing a statement of special education needs, those boards must have the resources to meet those needs.
A generation of people has passed through primary school since the introduction of the present curriculum. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment has done valuable work recently and I am glad we have faced up to the fact that times are changing fast and that curriculum needs are changing just as fast. In the White Paper it is proposed to make major changes in a number of areas, notably arts, science, languages and the promotion of health and well-being. Will the Minister indicate the proposed timescale for the introduction of the various changes set out in the paper? We must act sooner rather than later in this regard if we are serious about improving the present curriculum. However, I would sound a note of caution in this regard. Major changes in the curriculum may necessitate huge increases in resources. This was certainly the case on the last occasion changes of this order were made when the State did not meet its obligations in a proper manner and countless members of management boards and parents councils can testify to that.
I have been approached by many parents who want to become more involved with their children's schooling, but find that much of their time is taken up with supplementing, from local resources, the capitation grants from the Department of Education. This is not acceptable, nor will it be in the future.
Assessment of pupils and aggregated assessment outcomes for schools are necessary, but we must be careful in this regard. The opportunity to develop and the acquisition of learning skills may be influenced greatly by the socio-economic factors prevailing in certain areas. The yardstick applied in one region may not suit another. Before commenting more fully on this important aspect of education, I would need to examine the nationally agreed guidelines. Of course it will be necessary to ensure that teachers who form a central part of the curriculum and assessment are properly equipped to implement the provisions of the White Paper.
I welcome the firm commitment to pre-school and inservice development. The estimated cost of £40 million over five years does not seem realistic given that there are more than 40,000 teachers in first and second level schools alone. If money were not expended on higher or further education this would break down to approximately £200 per capita per year. If this work is to be done effectively, we must re-examine the costs involved. The establishment of an in-career development unit in the Department of Education and the provision of development programmes for parents and boards of management are positive steps. I hope the budget allocated to the unit will be sufficient to meet its needs.
A very important facet of education at all levels is the physical condition of the school. We are setting out ambitious targets in the White Paper but many of our schools are sorely in need of improvement. From my time as Minister of State in the Department of Education I am aware that enrolment projections for the closing years of the century show a decrease of some 65,000. I am also aware that this is taken into account as a factor when assessing the needs of current schools. Must we wait six years and in the meantime do little for the present accommodation needs of schools? Those questions must be answered to the satisfaction of all. Without making proper provision for a sound primary school system we will merely build a house on sand that will not withstand the rigours of time.
Our second level sector is complex and comprises secondary, vocational, community and comprehensive schools. Those schools are managed and funded in different ways and have differing needs. As this sector provides us with the first nationally standardised assessments of our pupils in the form of junior and leaving certification examinations, it is a vital element of the entire education process. It is regrettable that the White Paper recommends, as a major objective, the increase to 90 per cent of 16 to 18 year-olds completing the senior cycle. The admission that large numbers cannot or do not complete the senior cycle can be made only with deep regret. I accept that Youthreach programmes do much to redress the imbalance in the system, but the most welcome proposal in this area is that the school leaving age will be raised. At the very least the fact that school leavers have completed the three years of junior cycle education will impact favourably on their futures.
Our second level sector faces many of the problems I outlined in my review of primary education. Those problems are added to by the range of external influences which impact on those involved in this sector. Because of their age pupils at this level must come to grips with negative forces which do not figure on as large a scale on the lives of younger children. Much more is expected from teenagers in the education process. They must contend with the trauma of changeover, additions to their academic portfolios, increased workloads and the pressure to perform well in the points race. Lifetime choices must be made during those years as they will determine, or greatly influence, the audit lives of the students in question.
A number of questions must be asked regarding the junior and senior cycles. I note with interest the provision made for the introduction of leaving certificate applied and leaving certificate vocational. I hope the Government is prepared to provide proper resources to make these initiatives viable. Changes are already envisaged in the junior cycle which is not long in operation. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is again proving its worth here. If we must face the fact that the junior cycle does not address the needs of a small, but important minority, it is reasonable to suppose that we must give serious thought to any proposed initiatives. We can afford few mistakes at this juncture.
We recently introduced a transition year into the second level system. The varied reactions to the initial transition year should be noted. Many of those involved have benefited greatly from this year. I recently visited a school in my constituency where great results were shown by those in the transition year, but those results were possible only by increased financial support from parents, past pupils and the business community in the area. While the State may have shown initiative with this development, it was remarkably shy in matching enthusiasm with hard cash.
The White Paper also places great emphasis on the statutory responsibilities of education boards. Once again they are the authors of statements and the owners of buildings. I presume the bold type used in the launch copy to emphasise their powers highlights the democratic nature of education for the future. If I were more cynical I would advise potential members of such boards to look less at the fact that they appear to be empowered and more at where resources can be found to exercise that power. As numbers in primary schools decrease there will be a slight increase to the year 2001 in the numbers attending second level schools and a major increase in accommodation needs at third level.
We have already been told that traditional parochial boundaries will be phased out at first level where accommodation needs are in question. Does this mean the traditional catchment areas will go down the same road in the near future? Will there be open competition between boards similar to the supermarket bread wars? Fianna Fáil opposes the replacement of vocational education committees by regional education boards on the grounds that the new structures will be unwieldly and will cover areas much too large to administer effectively. At a time when we are asking more of our schools and of our teachers, we must not fall into the trap of asking too much of those who form the intermediate tier in our system.
Positive steps are being taken in regard to second level education. I have already mentioned the junior and senior cycle changes. I would mention also the commitments made to those with special needs, the travelling community, the development of the national foundation certificate programme and the liaison between the Departments of education. Health and Justice. Indeed, while in office I identified the latter as of crucial importance and I would go so far as to include the Department of Social Welfare in this group.
I do not want to appear to be the singer with only one song in his repertoire but I must again raise the thorny question of funding. Pious aspirations are fine and stated policy objectives are important, but our pupils, their parents and teachers — and we in this House — deserve more than precious packaging. We deserve to see the means of making the package a reality.
I call on the Minister to explain more fully the cost of each of the steps in this White Paper and to explain precisely where the funds to meet these costs will be found. Everybody in this House, in common with those outside it, wishes to make things better for all those in education. We must be in possession of all the facts before we can be expected to reach any decisions on issues as important as those we debate here today.
For those who are fortunate enough to have the chance to complete their second level education, there may be an option to continue in the process or to return to it at some future date. Further and higher education is being availed of by greater numbers of students year after year. We have made great strides in those fields over the past 20 years. There are opportunities now to make even further progress in vital areas. These are the final years in the educational life of any person. It would not do any harm, when considering future developments, to remember that we are dealing with adults, not children. I am not suggesting there is no involvement at this stage by parents and guardians, but those availing of further and higher education are well able to speak for themselves.
They are in a much better position to articulate their needs than those in the primary and second level sectors. They have a better understanding of the nature of their needs and must be treated in a manner which benefits the qualifications and achievements already gained by them. I need hardly remind the Minister that they possess the most powerful weapon which can be used in any national debate — they can vote. They can see through the public relations machine. They are intelligent, rational human beings and can strike back in a manner not open to their younger brothers and sisters. They are our immediate future and they need consideration on this basis alone.
There have been some excellent developments in further education over the past few years. My party was involved in many of these and I am justifably proud of this fact. Post-leaving certificate courses, the vocational training opportunities scheme and the adult literacy community education scheme have opened a world of opportunity for thousands of our citizens.
Excellent results are being achieved in the area of FÁS administered apprenticeships which by September of this year, will cover all 24 designated trades. The partnership in this area between Government, business interests and the trade unions demonstrates well the totality of involvement by all sections of society in the process of education.
The OECD, our own NESC, and the European Union have all produced reports and studies over the past two years which emphasise the vital role of this sector of education in the enhancement of economic performance. We would be unwise to ignore their findings. For this reason I welcome the establishment of a further education authority, as proposed in the White Paper, and the approval for the establishment of Teastas as a national certification authority. However, I hope we will not see a mushrooming of new boards for the sake of creating new appointment opportunities. Replacing authorities which have provided sterling service to the community, such as the NCEA, without making significant gains would be foolishness of the highest degree possible. Further clarification of the issues involved would be necessary before we could make rational decisions on these proposals. The White Paper on training, due to be published by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, should be made available before we are asked to sanction any changes in this key area.
Higher education will face the greatest challenge of all four sectors over the next ten years. The rise in numbers of those seeking places in higher education institutes will be astronomical. Accordingly, I would have expected major initiatives from the Government in regard to higher education. The reality is that, taking the enormous spectrum covered by regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology as a sub-sector in themselves, we have nothing more than commitments to maintain the status quo and expand the remit of the Higher Education Authority, coupled with vague suggestions based on future reports and the possibility of guidelines being published from time to time.
There are many quotations from the report on the national education convention. While this recent report is relevant to the questions of the day, it has already been published.
For the Minister to proudly present us with a report of its contents is not the proper way to treat such an important element of higher education. Warning bells should sound for all of us when we read that the Higher Education Authority will assess and approve applications for programme development in the context of the annual budgetary allocation exercise. Those warning bells should be very loud when we hear that the Higher Education Authority will be responsible for providing appropriate support. The colleges are being asked to live before they get grass, provided of course there is grass. Considering the rate of public expenditure by the Government at present, one wonders what the future holds.
The encouragement of the Irish language is to be praised. I have had a number of representations from interest groups which wish to see third level institutes established to cater for the growing number of students coming from gaelscoileanna. Will the Minister indicate whether she favours such a proposal? I am anxious to have an answer to that question. Commitments to developing links between third level institutions and designated second level schools are important, although I would like to know the criteria that will be attached to designation of schools.
I note the Higher Education Authority will advise on means of raising participation by students from lower socio-economic groups in third level education. I sincerely hope the advice, when given, is acted upon and that this is not yet another cog in the great PR machine. Surely the area of maintenance grants will need to be targeted if this long-overdue improvement is to become a reality. To centralise the application and payment process is not sufficient to achieve this aim. The further resources mentioned in the White Paper would need to be seen by us, and by the people who depend on them becoming available, before time runs out for them.
New legislation on governing bodies is promised for this year. An amendment of the National University of Ireland legislation is also promised for 1995. The introduction of more comprehensive legislation for the university sector as a whole is contemplated. We will have a very busy year in this House by all accounts. I sincerely hope this raft of legislative measures is approached by Government in a more serious manner than it has shown with this White Paper. We will need to see specifies, not platitudes, at that time.
I am happy that each third level institution will develop and publish an explicit policy on research. The role of research is of great importance to us as a nation and can only enhance our position in the field of international competitiveness.
I also welcome the move towards new control regulations for private colleges. The growth rate in this area has been great in recent years and it is time to ensure that the public has some yardstick to go by when it comes to choosing from the services advertised. The public has some redress when dealing with most commercial enterprises and it is fitting that it would see some Government intervention in this area also. I know the good private colleges, and they certainly exist, will welcome this proposal in the White Paper. The new regulations will enhance, rather than diminish, the standing of the private colleges in the public mind.
We are told in the White Paper that teachers are of central importance in the education system, which we have known for years. Without teachers there would not be any system. We are also reminded of the enormous contribution by teachers to society. We are further informed that the profession's standing has been recognised internationally. Such is the Government's high regard for teachers that it brought thousands of them on to the streets of Dublin last Tuesday to publicly accept the thanks of a grateful nation.
We may lay down conditions for preservice training, provide in-career development programmes, establish a teaching council and a welfare service for our teachers, and we may find a welcome for all these measures from both the profession and the public, but they will be of little value to us if our teachers are on the streets instead of in their schools. The hundreds of pages of proposals and provisions in this White Paper will amount to nothing if our children are not in classrooms gaining education under the guidance of those whose professional standing has been recognised by the international community. How can any Government have the nerve to present us with a document such as this White Paper when it cannot come to some accommodation with those who are central to its implementation? I call on the Minister to take immediate positive steps to restore harmony to the system and allow our children avail of one of their most basic rights — the right to be educated.
I spoke earlier of the importance of parents in the partnership that must exist for education to flourish. There are several references in the White Paper to statutory rights and entitlements which will be given to parents and to the statutory duty to be placed on boards of management regarding parents' associations. It is time to give full and formal recognition to the role of our parents in the system. The positive contribution by parents at present cannot be properly quantified. There is so much more they can give, and are willing to give, to the system that it would be sheer folly not to take full advantage of all that is on offer.
The home-school link, which Fianna Fáil identified as a major area for development, can only lead to better understanding. This in turn can have a positive effect on the educational lives of many thousands of children. I hope, however, in granting statutory entitlements to parents the Government does not intend to extract from them even more by way of financial commitment to the schools. For this reason, no less than the reasons I have given already I would like an assurance to be given to parents that the financial resources necessary for the task they will be asked to undertake will be available when required.
In general, I accept that the section of the White Paper dealing with organisational framework contains much that is rational and good. I have, however, major reservations about the proposal for education boards and I believe the proposal to have ten education boards is not well founded. It may be suitable in a tightly formed geographical unit such as Dublin city and borough to have a single education board. It may be more difficult to provide for the education needs of an area as large as the north east or the midlands. It will certainly prove more difficult in the case of my region, which covers five counties. Even if we allow for the establishment of the specialist boards we are still faced with the prospect of board members trying to come to terms with the needs of communities 50 to 60 miles away from them while at the same time trying to solve totally different demands in their own community. In view of the burden placed on each board I believe the proposed regions need to be again examined with the objective of finding a more reasonable geographical limit for an amended number of regions.
The proposals for the additional responsibilities of boards of management, the expanded role of school principals, the importance of central and regional inspectorates and the pivotal role of the Department are topics which demand more time than is available. This is not to dismiss issues of great importance in this debate and I reserve the right to return to them on another occasion.
Two areas with which I have been closely identified over the period of two successive administrations are youth and sport and it is only natural that I should have more than a passing interest in each of them. We are constantly told the greatest resource this country has is its youth. The four and a half pages reserved for youth work in the White Paper will do little to convince the youth that they are regarded highly by this Minister. I worked very closely with the youth sections of the Department of Education. The account given of youth work in the White Paper does not begin to explain the range of valuable services which have been put in place for youth. Neither does it make any serious attempt to evaluate the huge contribution made to youth work by large numbers of deeply committed voluntary workers.
One of the greatest problems facing Government has always been the fragmented nature of many of the youth services, giving rise to the need to channel funding for individual services through other bodies. Much work has already been done during my term as Minister of State to improve this. The announcement of a national youth advisory committee is not surprising and is welcome. However, the chorus which runs through the entire White Paper, such as "the education board will be given statutory responsibility for..." again comes into play and instead of unity we will have yet further fragmentation.
Sport plays such a major part in the lives of our people that I would have expected greater emphasis on it in the White Paper. Chapter 6 contains little or nothing that I had not put into practice in the past and anybody who has had an opportunity to study the speeches I made during the past three years will realise that 90 per cent of the document is simply a review of what I had to say. I am glad to see that most of the good practices which were honed and refined by the previous administration are very much to the fore. I welcome the appointment of sports development officers and I feel that the co-ordination of the efforts of those who are already working within the community is a very worthwhile objective. As a former member of the Council of Europe I did all in my power while Minister of State with responsibility for sport to further aims and aspirations of the Sport For All Charter. I consider it to be of primary importance in the context of sport in Ireland as it sought to extend the benefits of sport to as many people as possible across all sections of society. I am proud of my personal involvement as Minister of State with responsibility for sport in many initiatives taken throughout the country by various bodies to further the concept of sport for all.
The recognition of the role played by our schools, between teachers and pupils in the development of sport during the years is another feature of the report which I welcome but, of course, I have always recognised this and have long paid tribute to it. I am happy to see that the grants paid to national governing bodies of individual sports will continue to be paid because this is very important both for the development of the sport and the emergence of sports persons of excellence which has been the trend here in recent years. It is particularly important to continue to identify the need for the provision of facilities for particular sports and to locate them in the areas where they would have maximum effect. The needs of areas of major disadvantage will be looked at and this also was one of my objectives during my term in office. I am happy to see this being continued as I believe it is the correct stance to adopt.
I cannot let this opportunity to pass without recording my disappointment at the manner in which the small grants scheme for recreational facilities has been treated. Under this scheme many clubs and community based organisations were able to undertake projects which they otherwise could not afford. Let me assure everybody that value for money was the standard. The investment in facilities at local level by the State was matched many times over by the investment made by the local groups themselves. The facilities built will be of benefit to their communities for many years to come. The failure on the part of the Government this year to make an allocation is scandalous. It reneges on the commitment made by me and others to give our people, particularly our young people, healthy alternative lifestyles.
From my preliminary examination of this White Paper I can see many areas of agreement and a number of areas of conflict. How much consultation was there with all the partners in education before the document was finalised? It is a pity, having had the benefit of a number of years of preparation and a national convention to which all the partners in education were invited to make submissions, that we should arrive at a situation where the most important document in Irish education for many years appears to take little or no account of some of the concerns raised during the national convention and in the subsequent debate. When one seeks people's opinions they must be listened to and account must be taken of all the views expressed. If that is not done then we have set ourselves on a course which will lead to chaos and confusion and this most certainly cannot benefit Irish education in the years ahead.
