Vol. 490 No. 7
21 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Education and Science the plans, if any, he has to reduce the maximum class size permissible at primary level; and if he has satisfied himself that the present procedures are adequate to ensure that no classes exceed this maximum. [11098/98]
Maximum class size guidelines have been a feature of primary schools for many years. The existing maximum class size guidelines are: 35 in the case of a single grade structure; 34 in the case of two consecutive grades structure; 31 in the case of a multi-grade structure; and 29 in the case of schools which are designated as disadvantaged. Although the overall enrolment within a school may be organised within the recommended guidelines, some schools choose to organise their classes in such a way that some classes exceed the guidelines while others are well within the guidelines. While the allocation of teachers to classes is the responsibility of the school principal and board of management, maximum class size guidelines are designed to ensure schools do not have excessively large classes.
Statistical information submitted to my Department by primary schools suggests there are classes in breach of maximum class size guidelines. It is important to emphasise that, where maximum class size guidelines are breached in a particular class or classes in a school, this usually results from a conscious decision taken by school management with a view to facilitating much smaller classes elsewhere in the school. Many schools have classes which are much smaller than the maxima.
Where enrolment figures are such that the school is unable to organise its classes within the recommended maxima, application should be made to my Department for the appointment of an additional teacher. In the current school year, a total of 44 schools received additional staffing for this purpose. The allocation of posts arising from the demographic dividend will have the effect of improving pupil teacher ratios and of reducing average class sizes.
Does the Minister agree that there are over 54,000 children in classes of over 35 pupils, which is the highest level he has indicated? Effectively, 12 per cent of children are in classes of 35 or over, some being in classes with over 40 pupils. Does the Minister agree that he needs to take a more proactive approach in ensuring that class sizes are within the guidelines he has set? Does he accept that having 54,000 students in classes that are in excess of the guidelines is not commensurate with his allocation of 44 teacher places to deal with the problem?
As I said, this problem has existed for a long time. In 1988 the maximum class guideline was 39 for a single grade, 38 for two consecutive grades and 35 for multi-grade. We have come some distance since then.
There are approximately 1,395 classes with over the 35 pupils. In many of those instances the principal and board of management take decisions on the organisation of the school regarding class size, which means one can have very large and very small classes in a school. For example, the principal may decide that the infants and higher infants' classes need to be particularly small, and therefore the fifth and sixth classes may be bigger. That is why one tends to get more than 35 pupils in a class.
In addition, there may be high class sizes in rapidly developing schools, particularly in urban areas undergoing population increase. This can be ameliorated in the following school year. If, because of its numbers or circumstances, a school is genuinely unable to reorganise its classes to accommodate the maximum class size guidelines, it can apply to the Department for additional teaching posts. An inspector will visit the school and make an assessment to satisfy himself or herself that the school can organise itself within the guidelines. The inspector can then recommend the allocation of extra posts. That is the procedure.
The Minister should look again at the proportions. He is allocating 44 teachers——
They were allocated last year.
Yes. At a ratio of 30 to one, that would cope with approximately 1,300 pupils. We have 54,000 children in classes that have over 35 pupils, not 1,300. The Minister must accept that if a maximum is to mean anything, it must mean the norm, and this is not the norm. Will he indicate his plans to ensure that pupils will not be in classes that exceed the maximum, which is now occurring?
The Deputy is failing to acknowledge my fundamental point. A considerable part of this situation relates to the organisation of schools. Certain boards of management and principals will decide to have smaller classes at certain levels, which results in bigger classes at other levels.
What is the use of a maximum?
It is a guideline. The Minister could become overly prescriptive and dictate to schools how they should organise, but then there would be no flexibility. Targeting is important in the allocation of teaching posts under the dividend. There are other questions tabled about the need for more remedial, home-school liaison, special needs and resource posts. We must make decisions on the allocation of the resources available to us.
We could become more prescriptive and tell principals that they cannot organise their infants, higher infants and first class pupils in a certain way. We could tell them to have higher numbers at that age and to lower the class sizes at a higher age group, but that would be overly prescriptive. We must allow for local judgment. However, since we began retaining posts within the system under the demographic dividend with the Programme for National Recovery in 1987-88 there has been considerable reduction in pupil-teacher ratios generally. The situation has improved, though we have some distance to go. I acknowledge that a class size of over 35 pupils is too high in any school and I would like to reduce it, but we must work within available resources.
Does the Minister agree that a knock on effect of large class sizes is that a teacher cannot give individual attention to students? Large amounts of homework are given to pupils as a result, with senior infants receiving over an hour's homework. I do not think there are any guidelines in this matter and I know that the Minister does not want to be prescriptive, but he should give a commitment to look at this area with a view to issuing guidelines on the recommended homework levels for primary students.
I would be very popular if I became prescriptive in reducing homework. I do not think senior infants should receive any significant amount of homework. One hopes that the teaching of infants and senior infants would not be based on the homework approach. I do not want to be overly prescriptive, but more could be done in supporting schools with homework clubs, particularly for children from disadvantaged areas. I have had considerable representations and suggestions on this issue and am seeking to improve the situation. We occasionally get isolated complaints about excessive homework. We ask our inspectors to investigate those complaints and to make recommendations to the principals concerned. There should not be excessive homework for young children.
Does the Minister accept that it is unacceptable that 2,000 children are in classes of 40 pupils and over? He should be intervening in that area without being excessively directive. Our class sizes are among the highest in the OECD. Does the Minister accept that excessive class size contributes to the fact that 8 to 10 per cent of children leaving primary school fail to achieve an acceptable standard of literacy and numeracy? There must be some intervention in this area. Perhaps the Minister should begin non-directive consultations to tackle this problem.
I accept the Deputy's point. There are 43 classes with over 40 pupils, and there were similar numbers last year and the previous year. I am concerned that we could not improve those figures. I visited my old primary school yesterday and there were 55 pupils in the infants class.
Is this a version of Roots for the Minister?
When I was presented with the roll, I was amazed to see that there were 55 pupils on it. I said I would have to post it to Senator Joe O'Toole immediately.
He would say it proves his point.
He would say his is the best led and most effective trade union. I take the Deputy's point. However, there is general educational debate on the pupil-teacher ratio and its impact on literacy and numeracy standards. Some of the countries with the best results in standardised international tests in those areas have the highest pupil-teacher ratios, such as the Far Eastern countries. The debate should focus on what targeted resources we can make available to children who need additional help to improve their literacy and numeracy standards. This returns to the issue of providing more remedial teachers and a better psychological service. I accept the Deputy's point that we must acknowledge, in the context of the OECD's analysis of reports, Ireland's pupil-teacher ratio is still the highest in Europe. Within OECD countries Greece and Turkey have a higher pupil-teacher ratio than us and that position is not satisfactory. We need a broader public debate on the pupil-teacher ratio in primary education. Over the past number of years there has been complacent acceptance that because our population has been in decline all is well at primary level; because the number of pupils has been falling there should be more teachers available and people were satisfied with the retention of the demographic dividend. There is no mention in Partnership 2000, to which all the partners signed up, of the PTR at primary level and no specific target was included in it, unlike PESP and previous social partnership agreements which had specific targets for improvements in resources for primary education.
