I wish to share my time with Deputies Naughten, McGrath, Perry and Kenny.
Private Members' Business. - Educational Disadvantage: Motion.
That is agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to introduce a properly resourced strategy to tackle educational disadvantage and learning difficulties, which are a source of inequality at all levels of our education — pre-school, primary, secondary, third level, and further education — and which, despite their devastating impact on many young lives, are only addressed by a series of under resourced and ad hoc measures with very limited impact, and condemns the Minister for Education for not honouring commitments to the electorate in this respect.
This is one of the most important debates we will have in the Dáil this year. Educational disadvantage lies at the heart of poverty and marginalisation in our community. As technology advances, marginalisation becomes more acute. Tackling it at its source must be the national priority as we approach the new millennium. It is also an opportune time to take stock of what the Government is doing to tackle educational disadvantage. We have seen two books of Estimates from the Minister's hand.
No one can understate the extent of our educational disadvantage problem. Even a cursory glance at some of the indicators collected, many by international agencies rather than agencies within the Department, illustrate that point. One in five abandons school before sitting his or her leaving certificate. Reading scores at age 14 place Ireland in the bottom fifth of OECD countries. One in six school leavers cannot carry out even basic reading tasks. This was illustrated by the international adult literacy survey which found that one in six of those aged 16 to 25 is unable to read the back of an aspirin package. Those are some of the children who are the products of our so-called education revolution, but our education system is failing many of those young people at an early age. It is particularly disturbing that literacy problems of this sort are three times more prevalent in deprived urban areas and affect three times as many boys as girls.
There are 33,000 pupils of school going age with a disability and approximately two thirds are in mainstream schools where a significant proportion of them receive little or no support beyond the classroom teacher. This is an area in respect of which the Department does not collect information. The last survey to which the Minister can point dates back five years to 1993 when we found that almost 60 per cent of those with a disability in ordinary classes had no support beyond the classroom teacher. That was a shocking figure. The position has improved somewhat but not significantly in the intervening period, but the extent of the improvement cannot be documented by the Minister.
A total of 80 per cent of traveller children abandon school at the age of 12. A total of 10 per cent of children are affected by regular absence from school and that figure rises to 25 per cent in deprived urban areas. One in four children is regularly absent from schools in many parts of our city. More could be added to this chronicle of indicators of educational disadvantage. The Minister and the Department seem to have a policy of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" in relation to this problem. Despite the national anti-poverty strategy with its emphasis on educational disadvantage, the Minister has not arranged to gather any systematic information about many of the issues on which the Department sets specific targets. He does not collect regular information from schools about literacy and numeracy or about truancy and suspensions from schools, even though he has a legal obligation to do so. He also does not collect information about the special needs of children with disabilities and special learning needs which require appropriate resources. He must answer that he does not know the position in relation to those children. He does not collect systematic information about the level of adult illiteracy, another key target of the national anti-poverty strategy.
The Minister when in Opposition said he would introduce a five year strategy to tackle educational disadvantage. That was one of his priorities. He repeated that not only in public statements, but gave that solemn commitment to some of the teachers' unions. Specific targets were set by the national anti-poverty strategy in this area, but because information on this area is not collected we do not know if we are making any progress in this regard. Information is power, it commands attention and where it is not collected performance is clouded and accountability is blunted. It seems the Department and the Minister are happy to allow that position to continue.
The Minister and his Department have failed to devote adequate resources to the problems of educational disadvantage and we can see evidence of that all around us. An education in welfare service has not been developed for most of the 50,000 primary school children who have regular school attendance problems. There are school attendants for only five out of six pupils nationally in a certain limited number of urban areas that are not comprehensive in terms of the city of Dublin where large swathes of disadvantaged areas are outside the attention of school attendants. Recommendations have been put forward since 1970 to the effect that this matter should be taken out of the hands of the Garda, but this has not been acted on.
One in three children who need remedial education do not get it. A total of 91 schools designated as disadvantaged or breaking the cycle schools, many of which are in the most deprived parts of the country, have lost a teacher this year due to marginal declines in pupil numbers. Breaking the Cycle, which is reaching only 1.5 per cent of the pupil population, has not been expanded by the Minister. Fewer than one in ten adults with literacy problems are receiving adult education and literacy programmes continue to be run on a shoestring. None of the 14 young people who abandon school before sitting their leaving certificate obtains any guidance or counselling service. The pattern of educational disadvantage becomes established at pre-school and primary level. Presumably that was why the Government declared solemnly in its programme for Government that primary education would receive priority, but that has not happened.
In this year's Estimates an increase of £170 million in current spending was made available to the education sector, but how much of this went to the primary sector? Was it 80 per cent? Would that reflect it being given priority? Was it 60 per cent, reflecting that more than half of pupils in this country are at primary level? No, it got a mere 20 per cent of additional resources in terms of staffing and it was given only 24 per cent of the allocation in respect of capital spending, and the Minister heralded that as a revolution.
I am sure the Minister will seek to defend himself by repeating once again that £1 million per year over three years will be devoted to an early school leaver initiative, but he will not refer to the fact that this scheme received seven times more applications than were approved and would have needed £17 million to satisfy the genuine needs embraced by proposals put forward by the community and the educationalists across the country. These projects would have helped more than 11,000 potential early school leavers, but they were turned away. It is difficult to see how the Minister can gel that with his declared priority to address educational disadvantage.
People rightly ask how it was so easy to find £250 million for a technology initiative, but so little to address basic educational needs. The Minister must understand that people are frustrated with the hollow promises he gave before the last election. At primary level alone every school was to have a remedial teacher, but we know that 704 do not have access to one. Every one teacher school was to have a second teacher and every school was to have administrative and care-taking services as a basic necessity. Staffing schedules were to be altered and based on a progressive reduction of class size. The election manifesto went so far as to say that teachers would be retained in their schools even where there was a fall in numbers. That was an unrealistic provision to include in their manifesto. The Minister said that provision was wrongly interpreted and I will give him the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
When have we seen teachers forced to take to the streets in industrial action not in pursuit of better conditions for their members but to highlight some of the problems at the root of educational disadvantage? That is the sorry pass to which we have come and why this motion is so appropriate. Since the Minister took office he has not assigned an extra teacher to the primary sector or to second level. He is relying on the so-called demographic dividend, which is rapidly diminishing. This year alone the demographic dividend was halved. It decreased from 409 in 1997 to 189 this year and the pattern is continuing to decline. Birth rates have risen and the Department's projections in respect of pupil numbers suggest the decline in the number of pupils will be fewer next year than this year. In about three years' time the demographic dividend will have virtually disappeared.
The Minister is in the dock. He will protest that these problems are not all of his making and he is correct in that regard. However, he has made no effort to address them and for that he is accountable.
The education system is not levelling out life's opportunities in Ireland. Compared to the children of top earners, children from low income families fare substantially worse at each of the significant stages in the education system. When compared to their more well off counterparts, these children are 16 times more likely to leave school without sitting the leaving certificate examination, four times more likely to obtain insufficient points to gain entry to third level education and three times less likely to enter third level education, even if they attain sufficient points. In effect, the education system is reinforcing, not eliminating, inequality in the community. We must face these hard realities.
With regard to early school leavers, there is an unemployment rate of 61 per cent among those who leave without qualifications and a rate of 42 per cent among those who reach junior certificate level. People with a disability who emerge from the education system ill equipped to cope, face an unemployment rate of 80 per cent. Early school leavers are also vulnerable to slipping into a life of crime and substance abuse. In the past two years there has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of children aged under 13 who become involved in crime. It must be remembered that school attendance remains compulsory for children of that age. We are fast approaching a situation where one in seven of our young people will be reported to the Garda for juvenile offences and they will be either prosecuted or cautioned. Among these young people are the hardened criminals of tomorrow. The Minister has got his priorities wrong. We must stop the rot and begin the task of reversing these trends in the education system.
In recent days I hosted a conference which drew together many of those who deal with educational disadvantage in Leinster, particularly in the city of Dublin. It was frightening to have to come to terms with the extent of the practical problems faced by the schools and communities those people represent. In some areas children do not bother to attend school and they stay out until 2 a.m. collecting glasses in bars. In other areas, approximately 50 per cent of enrolments come from non-Irish families. These areas face a number of insuperable problems.
I am aware that tackling the problem of educational disadvantage is not an easy road to take. It would be much easier for a Minister to set his standards by providing computers in classrooms or instituting easy resource tests. The Minister has already had the opportunity to introduce two Estimates, but neither has reflected the commitment he made to bodies such as the INTO that a five year programme to tackle educational disadvantage would be put in place. His action on the subject of educational disadvantage has been nothing but a sham. For example, last year a tax relief for disadvantaged schools was introduced. Three people availed of it during the past year, which represents a total of £2,000 tax relief paid out under the scheme. That is the sort of thing which frustrates those in the frontline who are trying to cope with educational problems.
The Minister must face up to his responsibilities. Interestingly, the INTO has recalled a number of the statements he made in Opposition. For example, he stated it was unacceptable that schools which experience extreme disadvantage in urban and rural areas have been denied an additional teacher or support under the Breaking the Cycle initiative. He further stated that schools in so-called disadvantaged areas were being assisted by the increase in capitation grants but that those schools subsequently lost teachers. This year 91 such schools lost teachers which directly contradicts commitments made and views expressed by the Minister when in Opposition. He made similar statements about the remedial service.
When the Minister was in Opposition he was on the right track. However, something has gone wrong since he crossed the floor of the House. There are serious issues that affect all levels of education. For example, at pre-school level the early start programme reaches only 1.5 per cent of children. It is a sad reflection that most of the effort to tackle pre-school education does not even originate with the Department of Education and Science. People who work on community employment schemes throughout the country are taking a much more innovative approach than the Department, the main provider of education, to helping pupils with difficulties.
This is the basis on which the Minister stands in the dock. He must change his approach because, unfortunately, time is running out. He has already committed himself to introducing two Estimates which gave no priority to these sadly disadvantaged areas and young people.
The most recent ESRI school leavers' survey shows that a father's occupation can largely determine a young person's chances of entering third level education. Only 25 per cent of people from semi-skilled or unskilled backgrounds and 20 per cent from unemployed backgrounds attend university, but the national average attendance at third level is 37.5 per cent. Approximately one in five or 6,500 first year students drop out of college and do not register for second year courses. These figures are approximate because statistics are not available.
Why, at a time when we are enjoying an unprecedented economic boom and an increasing skills shortage, are so many young people dropping out of third level education? Why, at a time when the vast majority of graduates are guaranteed jobs, are these people not completing their courses? One of the main reasons for these statistics lies with the paltry maintenance grants paid to third level students. The maintenance grant works out at £45.88 per week. If a person is unfortunate enough to be offered a third level place in Dublin, digs will cost him or her on average, £65 per week while a flat will cost £45 per week. Rates charged for accommodation in many of the other towns and cities with third level institutions are not far below those charged in Dublin.
Given the price increases in the private rented sector, students are forced to use their entire maintenance grants to cover rent expenses. Students from low income backgrounds are being discriminated against at a time when the State should be encouraging their participation in third level education. The entire grant scheme must be radically overhauled. Grants must be increased in line with the cost of living and income limits must be raised. I urge the Minister to introduce an annual assessment for the cost of accommodation and other student costs prior to the decision on the structure of the maintenance grant for the following year.
The difficulties faced by students in obtaining accommodation are a direct result of the Government's response to the Bacon report. Like other low income groups, students must compete for accommodation with the private rented sector. An adequate supply of habitable and affordable accommodation does not exist at present. The irony of the Government's position is that while it boasts about the provision of additional college places this year it has in no way addressed the accommodation needs of students who hope to fill those places. Direct intervention is urgently required to provide students with viable housing options. I urge the Government to consider introducing a scheme where elderly people would be entitled to take in students on fixed rents without affecting their pension entitlements. Such a scheme would help to meet the need for additional accommodation while providing a valuable social service to the elderly and students alike.
While the number of on-campus accommodation facilities in Ireland is dwarfed into insignificance when compared to other EU countries, a massive programme of building must take place in the third level sector. Schemes of this sort should be developed with a combination of private and public sector funding.
The increasing financial pressures on students come at a time when various reports have assessed the cost of living of those who move away from home to attend college at between £4,500 and £5,500. This is placing huge pressure on many families, with parents being obliged to take on additional jobs or work long hours of overtime to try to make ends meet. It is also adding to the pressures on students in college who work part-time jobs to finance their education. These students must ensure they do not have to repeat a year because some of them could not afford to do so due to the expense involved. These issues are also related to the problem of suicide and attempted suicide among third level students, some of whom cannot find any other way out of the fight to find the money to allow them to stay in college while also ensuring they pass their examinations.
The much heralded back to education allowance has become a bureaucratic nightmare. It was introduced to encourage unemployed people to return to the education system. However, without an adequate up-front payment, many of these people cannot afford to pay deposits for their accommodation. The situation whereby applicants are not informed whether they will be approved for the scheme until they have registered is like buying a pig in a poke. This type of ambivalence on the part of the Department is discouraging many potential applicants from applying for the scheme. The introduction of an up-front payment from within the maintenance grant and the BTEA would help with certain up-front costs faced by students, particularly those from low income backgrounds who cannot afford to pay deposits on accommodation in Dublin or to pay for books, etc. The current quota system for the VTOS scheme is another example of bureaucracy gone mad. Ten per cent of places are held for single parents. However, if a single parent has not been unemployed for at least six months when this quota is being filled, he or she will not get a place on the scheme and it will continue, with vacancies, even though funding is provided. These are the people we should be encouraging back into the education system. We must develop a coherent, alternative entry system to third level education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and expand the scheme run by the partnership companies which provide funding for flexible support for third level students to cover expenses, such as, travel, books and examination fees. The Minister must break down barriers to entry to third level education, not create new ones. The only way to break the cycle of poverty and tackle disadvantage is through the provision of adequate funding to ensure every student has equal access to all levels of education.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I commend my colleague for putting down this motion. I wish to speak on special education provision and the services available to children with special needs. In the short time available to me I will not be able to do a comprehensive trawl through the sector, but I hope to highlight a few issues.
In recent times many parents of children with special needs have sought to have their children educated in mainstream schools, particularly primary schools. This is their entitlement by virtue of Article 42 of our Constitution, and this right is enforced in the education Bill recently approved by this House. The Minister has failed to deliver in this important area. We still have the humiliating experience of parents having to take the Minister and his Department to court to have those services put in place. Despite what is contained in the Constitution and in the recent Bill, the Minister continues to challenge parents to bring him to court. That is unacceptable and the Minister must hang his head in shame because he is still authorising his Department to contest these cases and force parents into the courts.
There is no blueprint for parents, for teachers or for boards of management on the services, resources and materials that are available to enable a student with special needs to attend a mainstream school. Recently in my constituency a child who is confined to a wheelchair arrived at school in September. There were some small provisions put in place but, even at this stage, as we head into the middle of November, all the facilities are still not in place for that child. The ramp into the school has only just been completed. Toilet facilities have only just been completed. The school is still not meeting the special educational needs of that child. I commend the Secretary General of the Department who, when I contacted his office quite recently, pulled out all the stops to ensure the service would be delivered and delivered quickly. It is not good enough that each parent has to reinvent the wheel every time a child with special needs is presented at school. We need to have a blueprint whereby a handbook will be available from the Department indicating to parents, teachers, principals and boards of management what is available from the Department of Education and Science and from the Department of Health and Children. It is not right that people should have to go through the humiliation of ringing the Department to be pushed from one Department to another and fail to get proper answers. This is something which has to be rectified by the Minister and his Department. The Minister's approach of forcing parents to have recourse to the courts to achieve a basic level of education for their children is outrageous and must be abandoned.
The availability of classroom assistants in schools where there are children with special needs is fundamental to the integration of these students into mainstream schools. While I welcome the Minister's announcement in this regard, I await the improvement at school level and will hence reserve my position in relation to it.
The treatment of children with dyslexia is something we need to treat very seriously. Dyslexia associations operate on a voluntary basis around the country. They provide, at not inconsiderable cost to themselves, additional tuition for the children. They organise weekend seminars for teachers to teach their children in a special way. This, unfortunately, is unresourced by the Department. It is an area where parents are left doing something on their own. Even where those children have been psychologically assessed and are found to have particular and specific learning difficulties, the Department does not respond to it. This is shameful. The Department's acknowledgement of this condition is very weak and I am disappointed that services and concessions previously available in relation to examinations seem to have been gradually eroded and withdrawn by the Department. What help is it to such a student to inform the examiner of his or her disability? I submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister today asking what services are specifically available in examinations for children with dyslexia. The whole thrust of the Minister's response was that the examiner will be informed that the child has a special difficulty. The Minister himself was a teacher. He knows, having operated in classrooms for quite a number of years as I did, that very often children can go unnoticed in the classroom. How then can he expect an examiner to know a child has particular difficulties. Will there be a label on his or her script to say the child is dyslexic?
The whole thrust of what the Minister is saying is that he will ensure all the work presented will be looked at and marked even if the writing is not very good and so on. That is not good enough. The major difficulty of some children with dyslexia is that they have difficulty reading the paper, they have difficulty reading it correctly and as efficiently as other children. That is where their problems lie. They have difficulty doing the work within the timeframe allowed and the Minister seems to have withdrawn the additional time that might be available to some of those children. They cannot complete a question within the same timeframe as the other children, yet the Minister does not seem able to give them the additional time that is necessary. Is it fair that they are not going to have that extra time and hence get a fair assessment of their education and ability to cope with the examination? That is something the Minister must review very carefully.
It was brought to my attention recently that a child who had multiple disabilities, who was wheelchair bound and who had movement only from the neck up was awarded an additional ten minutes to complete the papers in the leaving certificate examination. It seems outrageous that a student with such difficulties should be given such an inconsiderate timeframe in which to complete an examination and display to the Department and to the world at large that he or she has abilities, is able to cope with learning and with the leaving certificate examination. Yet the Minister seems to be cutting them off at an early stage and not helping them in any way.
I would like to have spent some of my time talking about the difficulties of children with autism. Autistic children are in a very special category. The Department of Education and Science has recognised the disorder and I commend the Minister for it. Autistic children do not look any different from others in general. Many of them display normal tendencies at times and have great difficulties at other times. We have to address that problem very sensitively and carefully. Only recently, again in my constituency, I was made aware of the expulsion of an autistic child from a school because the school simply could not cope with him. It needed three adults to look after the child each day and there were no additional resources at the school to help with the child. The school had no option but to expel him. Regretfully, that child is now in residential accommodation and possibly will remain there. If the additional resources were available to the school he was attending, the long-term prognosis for him would have been better.
I ask the Minister to address this whole area of special education.
I compliment Deputy Bruton on bringing forward this very important issue.
The extent of educational disadvantage in Ireland is alarming. Each year 14,000 students, or 21 per cent of the cohort, leave school without attempting the leaving certificate examination. In disadvantaged urban areas the position is twice as bad. Only 5 per cent of pupils from such areas will go on to third level education compared to a national figure of 45 per cent.
Despite the concentration of disadvantage in urban black spots, 60 per cent of children who are educationally disadvantaged are in rural areas or small towns. A recent survey showed that 25 per cent of Irish adults are at the lowest level of literacy. This incidence is 50 per cent higher than the average of other advanced countries surveyed. Those results are serious and alarming and there is a big responsibility on everyone involved in education to change that.
Addressing educational disadvantage is central in tackling poverty and social exclusion. Educational disadvantage curtails the life, chances and choices of adults and young people and contributes to an intergenerational cycle of poverty and social exclusion. In addition, it limits access and participation in the labour market and curtails personal and social development.
There is a growing awareness of the complex factors which give rise to educational disadvantage and a recognition of the need to address it in an integrated way. The focus should be on preventative initiatives which seek to retain young people in the educational system and on initiatives which provide support and progression routes to young people who leave school early.
The national development plan should provide for a continuation of local development programmes with a strong focus on addressing educational disadvantage. Child care can play an important role in addressing educational disadvantage and good quality child care has an educational dimension which can make an important contribution to the development of pre-primary education infrastructure.
Special measures which should be considered are: the further development of integrated responses, for instance, to support the involvement of parents as partners in education; the further development of home-school community link; the expansion of pre-school provision, particularly in the community and the voluntary sector in disadvantaged communities; the support and encouragement of models of good practice to target and support disadvantaged students in non-designated areas of disadvantage which are quite considerable and addressing continual high levels of adult literacy by supporting second chance education opportunities and lifelong learning.
Building and developing co-operation between business and education is critical. There are a great number of people in the educational system who can contribute to business. This should be looked at given skills shortages. Interventions should also be supported to help reduce the number of young people who experience problems in this area. The equal participation of members of the travelling community and of people with disabilities in the educational system should be encouraged. Flexible and innovative programmes must be used to help school leavers and early school leavers get real job opportunities. The expansion of support services, for example, guidance counselling and home liaison for potential and actual school leavers, is also important.
It is disturbing and disheartening that there are still 200,000 pupils in classes of 30 or more pupils. Eighty per cent of principals must combine their full-time teaching responsibilities with administrative duties. This is a major price to pay. More than 500 schools are still without access to remedial teachers, which is frightening. The pupil-teacher ratio for special classes set out in the special education review committee report has not been fully implemented. Due to a major shortage of substitute teachers, each day thousands of pupils are in the care of unqualified and untrained personnel. Forty two per cent of substitute hours were provided by untrained personnel in 1997.
It is frightening that 8,000 children with special needs are attending mainstream schools on an integrated basis without minimal support services. The most recent allocation of remedial teachers includes 13 clusters comprising four schools, 8 clusters comprising five schools, ten clusters comprising six schools and two clusters comprising seven schools. With clusters of this size it is impossible to provide the quality of individual attention which children attending remedial classes require. This is the biggest issue of all.
Half of the State's full-time students attend primary school. However, only a quarter of the funding goes to primary level. Primary school authorities are required by regulation to pay a local contribution before they receive their annual grant. This is not a requirement for postprimary schools or third level institutions despite the fact that the Constitution guarantees free primary education for every child.
I support Deputy Bruton's motion. A number of pertinent facts have come to light, even at this early stage of the debate. The bright and shining light which entered the Department of Education and Science has visibly dimmed, either because the Minister is running into a bureaucratic wall or because the promises which he made prior to election are unrecognisable and unreachable.
The Constitution guarantees equality and fairness to each child. Yesterday a teacher approached me about a six year old with multiple problems — physical and mental disability and visual impairment. This child's parents want to enrol him or her in a normal school next year. The teacher called all the relevant agencies together and all of them are unable to provide facilities and resources to cater for this child's problems.
I received three replies to parliamentary questions about remedial teachers from the Minister today. The first related to Attymass national school, Ballina, and assured me that the needs of Attymass national school will be considered in the context of any additional remedial teacher allocations. The second related to St. Peter's national school, Snugboro, Castlebar and assured me that the needs of St. Peter's national school will be considered in the context of any additional remedial teacher allocations. The third related to Attymass, Bofield, Bonniconlon and Carrow schools and assured me that the needs of all schools in that area will be considered in the context of any additional remedial teacher allocations. In fairness to the Minister, they are replies. However, they mean absolutely nothing.
Three hundred and fifty pupils are needed to qualify for a remedial teacher, which means at least five or six schools. The teacher's time travelling from school to school is taken from teaching time. The business of setting up and getting children ready for tuition means that the area is disastrous. It does not deal with the problem.
St. Anthony's and St. Brid's are special schools in Castlebar. St. Anthony's is run by Mrs. Kavanagh who trained escorts to bring children to school on special buses — children who are agitated, autistic, blind or have behavioural problems and need to be harnessed in or have special mobility aids. Some of these children are now being denied access to any education simply because the FÁS scheme, under which the trained escorts are operating, is coming to an end. The pilot scheme operated by the Department of Education and Science is not being extended to cater for a number of runs from all over the county for children who need special attention.
The bus driver told me that one child sitting in the passenger seat took off his shoe and threw it on the road. It is likely that he has to be restrained because of his agitated nature. When these children arrive at their school without an escort, the teacher has to come out and physically lift children — some of whom weigh 12 and a half stone and have mobility aids — off the bus and out of special harnesses. In some cases the teacher has to summon help from another teacher in the classroom, which leaves a class of impaired pupils unattended. This is unacceptable.
Some of these escorts are cycling three or four miles to bus pick-up points to give their commendable service to the Department of Education and Science in the interests of caring for children. They are doing so on a FÁS salary of £3,900 per year. This is absolutely disgraceful. I know the Minister will allocate funding in the budget. I hope he will extend the trained escort service to priority areas who need it, as it cannot be done all over the country at once. It will in some way deal with the constitutional requirement to give these children access to education which they richly deserve and about which their parents are so seriously concerned.
The Minister also made promises as regards one teacher schools prior to the election. Ten of these are left in Mayo. I know the Minister costed this when he was in Opposition, although it has been costed differently since he entered Government. I would like him to deal with this. The pupil-teacher ratio cannot be achieved next year but the Minister can work on it. Departmental equipment grants, under which schools could recoup 50 per cent of costs, are no longer in operation. They should be reintroduced. It was a good and effective scheme.
I wish to share time with Deputy Brian Lenihan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Éireann notes that the 1999 Abridged Estimates show spending on first, second and third level education rising by 20 per cent, 19 per cent and 19 per cent respectively versus the 1997 allocation and that this figure includes the largest ever direct funding increase for primary schools, believes that this significant investment in education is of crucial economic and social importance to the country and supports efforts to target resources at those who experience educational disadvantage.
Having waited for a year and a half I welcome this first education debate initiated by the Opposition during this Dáil. I do not know why it has taken it so long to table an education motion. Perhaps it thought the passage of time would erase the memory of its empty rhetoric, its freezing of school funding, its failure to address special needs, its inactivity and its introduction of Estimates which would have cut teacher numbers. Whatever the reason for its reluctance to use its own time to debate education, it has finally got around to giving three hours to the issue of educational disadvantage. It is a pity that we do not have more time because the Government is willing and eager to compare records in this area with the parties that made up the last Government. We have implemented more improvements and honoured more commitments than the last Government. We have replaced inaction with innovation and a commitment which will stand the test of time.
There is no more important challenge facing society than that of making the education system more inclusive. The many initiatives I have launched and will launch in the near future will implement a soundly-based approach at all levels. I have no interest in knee-jerk schemes which sound good but which waste limited resources and undermine our ability to make a real difference.
As Deputy Bruton admitted yesterday, the holding of this debate has little to do with a wish to have an informed discussion on serious issues, rather the Opposition believes that it can use this as a wedge issue to undermine the Government. A similar tactic was used last week when the Opposition sought to condemn a record on spending on disability services which dwarfs its own. Shameless self-righteousness characterised many of the contributions and a number of Deputies have nothing to be proud of in their behaviour after the debate. The almost intimidatory tactics used demonstrated clearly that the Opposition would not let the facts get in the way of its desperation to regain power. I am not naive enough to expect the Opposition to be genuinely constructive but its latest tactics represent new levels of brazenness.
We should send for the nurses, the Minister is so upset.
How many pages can the Minister go without using the word "pupil"?
We have no intention of letting the Opposition away with this. It had its chance. Its record is there for all to see and it failed to address any of the substantive issues about which it has worked itself into a state of false indignation.
According to the motion Deputy Bruton believes the Government and I are to be condemned for our performance on educational disadvantage at all levels during the past five years. I am happy to accept the invitation to compare records point by point.
One of the novel tactics used by the Opposition during the past week has been the crass misrepresentation of the Estimates volume published by the Minister for Finance. On the day Deputy Noonan attacked the Government for spending too much money the Opposition attacked it for abiding by the health spending controls it introduced. Deputy Bruton is now using the same tactic in relation to the education Estimates.
The Estimates for 1999, as published, show that education spending will be more than £500 million higher than the 1997 post-budget figure provided for by the Opposition when setting priorities. Deputy Bruton has ingeniously sought to twist the 1999 figures to suggest that the primary sector will receive less than other sectors. He is either forgetting or choosing to ignore technical adjustments which I explained to the House previously and which mean that second and third level increases are slightly inflated. These adjustments, which introduce fortnightly pay for secondary teachers and ensure third level grants are paid on time, represent discernible service improvements which were ignored for too long. The effect has been to inflate the 1997 outturn, deflate this year's outturn and make next year's increase for these sectors look higher than the primary sector increase.
If one makes a reasonable two year comparison, one will see that primary sector spending will be 20 per cent higher next year than the amount provided by the Opposition in 1997. This compares with increases of 19 per cent at second and third level.
Nonsense. The Minister is making it up as he goes along.
Allowing for declining enrolments at primary level, this represents a major advance in funding. Next year will see the largest ever increase in direct funding for primary schools. In only two years I will have increased direct funding for primary schools by more than one third. When additional new payments relating to infant classes and science equipment are included the figure is even higher.
Let us compare this record which Deputy Bruton wishes to condemn with that of the Government of which he was a member. In the 1997 budget it had its chance to show what its priorities were. A Government comprised of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left, with a Labour Minister for Finance and Minister for Education, decided to freeze all capitation payments. Its record on teaching resources was even worse. The 1997 post-budget Estimates included an unprecedented proposal to cut teacher numbers at primary level. This proposal was laid aside only when it was staring down the barrel of an imminent general election. It fell to me to introduce a Supplementary Estimate to pay for the abandonment of these cuts. In light of this the House will forgive me if I disregard the Opposition's crocodile tears about school staffing.
A remedial service should be available to all pupils who need one. It is unacceptable that so many schools have no service. The Government will face the electorate having addressed this issue comprehensively. I made a start last year by allocating additional teachers and there will be further significant improvements next year.
The home-school liaison scheme introduced by my colleague, Deputy O'Rourke, makes an important contribution to the work of disadvantaged schools. That is why I allocated extra staff to this area from last September. It is my goal to ensure every disadvantaged school benefits from this service.
The teacher-counsellor model can also make a major contribution. The teacher-counsellor role is to co-ordinate a whole-school approach to disruptive behaviour and to teach and counsel small groups and individuals who exhibit persistent behavioural difficulties. I appointed extra teacher-counsellors last year and I am examining the further expansion of the scheme, including whether the model could be applied at second level.
Educational disadvantage is not an exclusively urban phenomenon, it can be particularly acute in isolated rural areas. It is widely accepted that teaching all years in one class places all students at a disadvantage and that the smallest schools need additional help. While the Opposition's policy in government was to ignore this issue, we have made two reductions in the staffing schedule for the smallest and most isolated schools and will fully implement our promises in office.
Even though historically, children with disabilities have been the most disadvantaged when it comes to the provision of an appropriate and responsive education, the Opposition has failed to mention them in the motion. This is understandable in light of its shameful record of inaction. The Government has introduced a radical initiative which gives children with special needs, particularly children with autism, the automatic right to the supports they need to benefit from education. Costing about £4 million next year, this initiative is particularly important in establishing the automatic right to child care assistance to help with toileting and mobility among other matters. The policy I inherited from the last Government not only refused these automatic entitlements but involved fighting a case — the O'Donoghue case — all the way to the Supreme Court to deny these entitlements.
The Minister is in the High Court this week.
He is not. That case cost £250,000 and I look forward to Opposition Members explaining how my record is to be condemned in comparison to this. On the Order of Business Deputy Bruton had the nerve to suggest that I was taking these families to the High Court. I inherited these cases from the Administration of which he was a member. They were launched in the context of the failed policies which I inherited.
Why is the Minister fighting them?
My initiative will remove the need for parents of children with autism or others affected by the initiative to have recourse to the law to have their rights vindicated. It is normal for justices to keep cases under review until new arrangements are bedded down. On the morning of 10 November, Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness addressed court No. 7 and informed it that she wished to make a statement. The report sent to me said she expressed her thanks to the Minister for Education and Science for his courtesy in making available to her his press statement on children with special needs prior to being made public. She had read the statement carefully and wished to express her admiration for the policies expressed therein. She congratulated the Minister on this significant move announced recently. The House will forgive me if I place more importance on this type of informed comment than the shallow, self-serving and shameless posturing of Deputy Richard Bruton on this issue.
Another category of cases before the courts that relate to young offenders remains of major concern to me. I have visited the various facilities under my Department's control and must say that, at least in one instance, the conditions were scandalous. The Opposition may have been willing to stand over this situation when it was in power, but this Government will not do so. Redevelopment funding for these facilities has been increased in the Estimates by more than 300 per cent and I have also significantly increased current funding. The Government has no intention of neglecting this group of disadvantaged young people in the manner of the previous one.
Deputy Kenny spoke of the need for escorts on buses for children with disabilities. What was he doing in the last Government? This situation has existed for years. There have been no escorts on school buses for children with disabilities for five years. The Deputies opposite, especially those who were in Government, have some nerve to posture on the matter in the House when they did absolutely nothing about it when they had the chance. I will do something about it shortly to ensure such children have escorts on buses in future.
Another scandalous situation which I encountered on coming into Government was that the previous Government was forcing all special schools to come up with 15 per cent of the funding for any capital project. I changed that within two to three months of coming into office and ensured they had to come up with only 5 per cent. We will be changing that again and will announce further developments on that front shortly.
I am proud to have made a priority of ensuring there is an educational psychological service to identify and intervene where various needs manifest themselves. Since taking office, I have appointed additional psychologists and put in place a blueprint for a national educational psychological agency. The various staffing improvements I have mentioned have focused on addressing educational disadvantage and have been warmly welcomed by the schools concerned. On a number of occasions it has been falsely presented that I reduced staffing for disadvantaged schools. I want to nail this. Apart from the targeted improvements which I outlined, the staffing arrangements for all disadvantaged schools are fully in accordance with those agreed by the last Government. While I hope to improve on these arrangements, if the Opposition wants to attack them, it must admit it put them in place.
An accusation has been made by some concerning the Breaking the Cycle initiative. The core staffing schedule of 15:1 for infant classes is being fully and absolutely adhered to. I have no doubt some Deputies will ignore this and keep peddling their line but it is simply untrue. On the wider issue of this pilot project, it is providing very valuable learning and I pay tribute to the coordinator of the project, whose energy and commitment are the most important elements of what I believe will be its success. That said, I hope there can be a sense of proportion on the scale of the project. I have no doubt we will hear some inflated rhetoric from the Labour Party, but it should not be forgotten that it covers only 35 urban schools. It was not expanded by the Labour Party in 1997 when it had the chance, and it involves the expenditure of only £700,000 above existing resources already within the system. If one compares this with the huge level of funding allocated to third level fees by the same party, one can see where its priorities lay.
The quality of education children receive is often affected by the quality of the building in which they are taught. There was a serious backlog of even basic remedial work which had been left unaddressed by the time the Government took up office. We have doubled spending on school building and renovation and next year more than £117 million will be spent in this area. There will be a discernible improvement in the quality of the learning environment for many of our school pupils, and I also intend to ensure disadvantaged schools are better enabled to benefit from State funding for projects.
When I launched the Government's technology for schools plan, I said we were determined not to reinforce inequality through unequal access to information communication technologies. We have been true to this. All schools have benefited from direct funding and we have been developing ways of using ICTs to improve and expand education in disadvantaged areas. Some of these projects are already drawing international attention, and over the coming months I will be in a position to announce a range of new initiatives. In comparison, the only funding available from the last Government was for computer trolleys rather than computers.
The travelling community has traditionally been one of the most educationally disadvantaged groups in this country. Since my appointment, I have sought to work with members of the travelling community to develop our policies in this area. As well as expanding provision in traveller education centres, I assumed responsibility for senior traveller training centres. I have also established an advisory committee on traveller education, which includes members from a range of organisations, including those representing the travelling community. I am fully committed to ensuring we have a comprehensive and integrated policy on extending educational opportunity to all travellers and providing the necessary resources to do so.
There is no doubt that one of the great divides in Irish society is between those who have completed a senior cycle education and those who left school early. Some 63 per cent of unemployed people have no leaving certificate and three quarters of poor households are headed by a person with no educational qualifications. These factors cannot be ignored and that is why I have given them such prominence since my appointment. It was only after I started addressing this issue that the Opposition began to show an interest in it. The policy before my appointment complacently assumed we were effortlessly moving towards the goal of having 90 per cent of students complete the senior cycle. Within a few months of my appointment I pointed out that retention figures suggested at best a levelling at roughly 80 per cent. I established a group to carry out the first proper quantitative and qualitative analysis of the areas where retention rates are low, and I will shortly be in a position to act on the results of this research process. The curriculum provided by schools can play an important part in helping a child to stay in school. Significant extra funding is in place to ensure the curriculum diversity needed to provide the most appropriate programmes for each student. This will make a definite impact on retention.
The payment of examination fees by poorer families was presented to me as badly affecting them. As a result I abolished these fees for all families who qualify for a medical card. Forgetting that his Government did nothing about this issue, the only response from Deputy Bruton was that I should get rid of them for all students. This reflects the general policy he has adopted to my announcements — calling for a doubling of everything, even where he previously ignored the issue. This was almost comical last November on the day when the Government announced the largest single investment in education in the history of the State. Deputy Bruton's response to the Education Technology Investment Fund was that it should be £750 million rather than £250 million. What was especially remarkable about this was that it was only a matter of months since he had sat in a Cabinet which failed to provide funds for the problems being addressed.
Although Deputy Bruton now dismisses the initiative we announced to target early school leaving in the age group eight to 15, this is the first time any Government has addressed the problem. It also involves a level of funding greater than that allocated to other pilot projects which the Opposition spends so much time lauding. The roughly 3,000 students each year who fit into this category must be a priority and I am determined to isolate the most effective policies and expand them to all areas which would benefit from them. An essential part of this is to develop a system for tracking students who are in danger of drifting out of the education system and intervening at the right stage. The failure of the last Government to provide such a system has been a serious impediment to tackling attendance problems, but the issue has been identified and is being addressed. This tracking system will be one of the most important outcomes from the initiative and will provide invaluable assistance to the new Education and Welfare Board which the Government will establish next year. The board will be a centre piece of the new school attendance legislation currently with the parliamentary draftsman. The legislation will move away from the ineffective enforcementonly approach the previous Government was wedded to and will implement a more integrated and child-centred policy. Education welfare officers will liaise with schools, parents, the Garda and the children to ensure attendance problems are either prevented or isolated and quickly addressed.
I accept Deputy Bruton is sincere in wanting to tackle the issue of early school leaving, but I cannot accept that spending millions on providing teenagers with a small wage to stay in school or the introduction of discredited and divisive league tables would achieve anything positive. In all, the multi-layered and innovative policies we have developed represent a more credible response.
It is also important to provide second-chance interventions for those who leave school early. Because of the importance we place on this area, the first decision of this Government on education was to expand Youthreach provision and improve the service available to participants. This highly effective programme, initiated by Fianna Fáil when previously in Government, has been directly responsible for helping thousands of young people get back into education or employment.
Not only did we create 1,000 extra places, we also provided an additional £1 million to strengthen counselling, guidance and psychological services for participants. A total of £2 million has been provided to expand bridging and progression options and almost £3 million has been provided for child care services for both Youthreach and VTOS. I challenge any party in the House to match this level of commitment to helping this educationally disadvantaged group.
Because of the importance I place on second-chance and adult education, I established the Education Access Support Service earlier this year which is helping in the co-ordination and planning of these services.
We have been clear that we intend to tackle the high level of literacy problems among our adult population. As a start, we doubled targeted adult literacy funding to £4 million this year. We will go further than this and reinforce another record of helping the educationally disadvantaged which no party in the House can challenge. This will be particularly demonstrated in the Green Paper on Adult Education which we will launch later this week. The post-leaving certificate sector has been dynamic and effective in expanding educational opportunity to more and more groups. We recognise this and we have already created more than 4,000 additional post-leaving certificate places. In addition, we have introduced a maintenance grant scheme for post-leaving certificate students which will cost more than £15 million per year.
How much has the Minister paid out? How many students have received grants?
The Minister, without interruption.
Having studiously ignored this sector when in Government, the Opposition's only response has been to carp at inevitable administrative difficulties in implementing a complex new scheme. In addition to this funding, we have provided the first ever dedicated capital budget for post-leaving certificate colleges.
I have repeatedly said that flexible routes of progression within further and higher education are essential to building inclusion. This will form one of the central elements in the qualifications Bill which I will publish in the coming months. However, I have already supported the development of a new NCEA foundation course specifically targeted at people who previously did not have access to educational opportunities.
I have also greatly increased the number of places available to students wanting to follow apprenticeships. Thousands of new places are giving people, who might not benefit from the traditional academic routes, the opportunity to have a high quality training and obtain well paid employment. A total of 5,600 apprenticeship places have been provided in less than 15 months.
At third level, we have expanded opportunity through creating more than 8,000 extra places. Funding for disadvantaged access is more than £800,000 and I hope to be in a position shortly to announce a significant development in this area.
The technological sector has been a driving force behind expanding opportunity at third level. It offers a range of flexible options directed specifically at key strategic needs. This Government has a record of investing in its development unmatched by any party, particularly in the context of the technology investment fund which will invest more than £100 million in the infrastructure of those colleges.
An essential element of third level is the need to broaden access, especially through non-traditional routes of entry. I remind the House of the national certificate in manufacturing technology which I launched last January. Through this initiative, people are given places on courses which involve a heavy degree of work placement. The level of attrition from the course is very small and the employment opportunities are almost guaranteed. A total of 300 people started on the course in January and we have had more than 2,000 applications for a further 500 places on a course which will commence next January. This is educational disadvantage being challenged in a targeted, effective and lasting way.
Through a task force I established, a highly innovative summer programme in technology training was implemented this year, and 45 per cent of the participants were unemployed. We also announced the establishment of Blanchardstown Institute of Technology, with a capital investment of more than £20 million and a targeted enrolment figure of 30 per cent non-standard entrants. This is a significant initiative in terms of tackling access to third level education in an area which has had the lowest participation in third level of any other in the country.
The contrast between this range of targeted and effective policies and the record of the previous Government is dramatic. It had its priorities and while educational disadvantage featured high in the speeches, it simply did not rate when it came to action. Everything was put into an untargeted abolition of fees which has not helped a single child from an area of significant disadvantage to go to college. Costing more than £70 million this year, the abolition of fees put the brakes on improvements in nearly every other area of education. I realise the abolition has relieved pressure on many middle income families who found it difficult to pay the fees, and I do not intend to reintroduce them.
Was the Minister opposed to it? He was in Government.
The Minister, without interruption.
The Opposition, and the Labour Party in particular, should have the good grace to admit this was their only significant priority.
I was struck by the promise made by the Leader of the Labour Party to a student demonstration last week to implement their shopping list of demands costing more than £100 million per year. He went as far as promising to abolish a registration fee which his party had introduced. I also cannot take seriously the attacks on me, supposedly on grounds of concern for the disadvantaged, for implementing an already envisaged increase in a charge not paid by 50 per cent of students.
The message is clear; as far as the Labour Party is concerned, other areas of education can wait. It has no intention of adopting a policy of genuinely targeting disadvantage. Perhaps its Members, in their contributions, when they finish praising themselves for pilot initiatives costing an additional sum total of £1.5 million per year, could explain how it is that, as a result of a budget prepared under the direction of their leader and with the concurrence of a Cabinet which included Deputy Bruton, they were willing to vote in favour of Estimates which froze school funding, cut primary teacher numbers, refused automatic supports to many children with disabilities and maintained exam charges for the poorest families.
They might also usefully explain why the establishment of a series of regional quangos costing £40 million should have been a priority while, at the same time, they spent £250,000 denying the educational rights of a child with severe disabilities. Unfortunately, I do not expect that any of these questions will be answered. While they have never been noted for self-criticism, we will inevitably hear again the epic case of auto-revisionism which is allowing the Opposition to ignore its many failures in Government.
When the bluster and self-congratulation is stripped away, the Opposition has a record of consummate failure when it comes to tackling educational disadvantage. It is clear that the Opposition recognises the success of this Government in setting the agenda on education and in putting educational disadvantage at the heart of public policy debate. In most areas, the first time the Opposition gets around to even talking about issues is in response to a Government initiative. Its agenda, which has been reactive and negative, has failed to make a constructive contribution.
My condemnation of the record of the previous Government is not something which its opponents alone hold to. I would direct members of the Opposition to the comments of the leader of the previous Government on the "Morning Ireland" programme of 24 July when he admitted they had signally failed to prioritise educational disadvantage and investment in primary education.
In comparison, we can point to action through the largest ever increase in direct primary funding, the first ever automatic support for many children with disabilities, a new approach to traveller education, a doubling in school building and renovation funding, the guarantee of equal access to information technologies, the expansion of curriculum diversity at second level, the creation of an educational psychology service, the integration of drop-out initiatives across first and second levels, the abolition of exam fees for the poorest families, the development of a radical new approach to attendance problems, the implementation of a major expansion in early school leaver services, together with counselling and child care facilities, the doubling of adult literacy funding, the introduction of grants for post-leaving certificate students, the expansion of places at both further and higher education, the introduction of new third level courses targeted at excluded groups and so on.
Ours is a wide-ranging and determined commitment to expanding educational opportunity which dwarfs that shown by the Opposition in its time in Government. Having waited for a year and a half, the first education topic raised in Private Member's time has, unfortunately, been motivated again by short-term considerations. I have no difficulty rejecting the condemnations in the motion.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Moynihan-Cronin. Tá athás orm an seans a fháil chun labhairt sa díospóireacht seo anocht. Over recent years the terminology of social science has gained currency in political discourse. We now speak about social exclusion and social disadvantage. These terms are common currency and all parties and Deputies use this terminology. However, it is important at times to bring to mind the reality that lies behind our language. Social exclusion and social disadvantage are other terms for poverty. It is the poverty that was present in my youth, that has forced generations of young people to emigrate and that has ensured that social divisions continue to this day.
When seeking to comprehensively deal with a problem like educational disadvantage and learning difficulties, a structured inclusive approach is required. In solving any problem the first step is to clearly identify and quantify that which needs to be remedied. Then there must follow a full assessment of the available resources which are being, or can be, brought to bear in achieving a resolution.
Having clearly defined the objective and assessed available means to realising that objective, the first step is to ensure optimum utilisation. When there are many elements to the solution co-ordination and streamlining are paramount. Equally important are careful monitoring and accountability.
These general points may seem like stating the obvious but against the background of the provision of the Department of Education and Science for educational disadvantage and learning difficulties they need not only to be stated but to be re-emphasised. This is not to suggest that schools or the Department of Education and Science can come anywhere near providing what is needed without an integrated approach involving other Government Departments, local authorities and State agencies. The focus at pre-school, first and second levels must be a family one. This focus can be and often is necessary into third level and second chance education.
The first concerted effort to target disadvantaged children to ensure that they got the necessary support and resources was made by the former Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, in the last Administration. The "Early Start" and "Breaking the Cycle" programmes were innovative measures that sought to redress the gross inequality that has bedevilled our society for decades. These programmes have been welcomed by all partners in education. The expansion and enhancement of these programmes is essential if our assault on educational disadvantage is to continue.
Unfortunately, the expansion of these programmes has not been a priority for this Government. At a time of unprecedented economic growth we are presented with an unrivalled opportunity to invest in the future of our children and of communities that have struggled against economic and social deprivation for decades. However, to date, the record of this Government and its plans for the huge Exchequer surplus, do not seem to have taken account of this fact.
Early intervention, individual plans and regular review and adaptation are essential ingredients of the needed provision in effectively combating educational disadvantage and dealing with learning difficulties. This must be underpinned by a holistic approach centred on the family and a co-ordination of family support services.
In terms of family support services, education welfare officers can play a key role. Where parents, for instance, through dereliction of responsibility or neglect are failing their children then, in the interests of those children, they must be assisted in discharging in a fit and proper way their responsibilities as parents. Education welfare officers must have a statutory role and in order that that role may be maximised in terms of effectiveness, statutory powers to co-ordinate the services of the various Government Departments, local authorities and statutory agencies must be provided. Effectively, the education welfare officers would have a clearly defined statutory role and, more importantly, statutory powers.
The final responsibility would rest with the education welfare officer to see that individual education plans were implemented, that a holistic approach would be brought to bear on the needs of the individual child, which could include education for the parents in terms of parenting, and any other supports and interventions which would be required to make the fullest provision for the child.
Referral to the education welfare officer could not be made too early and could come from development clinics, medical practitioners, social workers or any other health professionals, the probation service, the Garda, teacher or any competent person.
If pupils are poorly prepared when they enter the formal school system, a major opportunity has not alone been lost but the prospect of making good that loss to any sustainable degree is remote. This underlines the necessity for early diagnosis and early intervention. Most sensory, physical or intellectual disabilities are identifiable, if not at birth, at an early stage of the child's development. The special needs that arise from social or environmental factors are also predictable, if not from the very beginning, then also at an early stage of development.
When children with special education needs have been identified and their needs comprehensively assessed, it is absolutely vital that appropriate individual plans are developed for each child but also that an effective monitoring procedure is put in place so that the possibility of these children, at any stage, falling out of the education system is effectively removed.
A key service in ensuring that children are identified at an early stage in the education system lies with the schools psychological service. The Minister has expanded this service since he came into office. However, the fact that, as we approach the end of the 20th century, this State does not have a nationwide psychological service for our primary schools is nothing short of a disgrace.
The Labour Party supports this motion. We cannot accept that when the coffers of the State are awash with money, a Government can ignore those communities that have suffered the most hardship and disadvantage. If we do not tackle this problem now we may live with the consequences of the Government's failure for decades to come. Now is the time to act and this message must be heard loud and clear, not only in the Minister's office in Marlborough Street but more importantly in the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy's, office in Merrion Street.
I do not propose to go back over the past and I hope my comments will be seen as constructive. I disagree with Government policy, although I recognise that in his own way the Minister is seeking to deal with the problem of disadvantage. However, I have long held the belief that the problem of educational disadvantage is not one which a single Minister can address effectively. This matter is one for the Government to address. The Government now has the greatest opportunity in terms of resources to address the problem. There may be turf wars in bringing forward the type of agenda that I have suggested. Nonetheless, that should not daunt anybody and it certainly should not daunt the Government in moving towards a resolution that can bring real change and improvements in the areas I have outlined.
There is one point which involves a certain cost factor but it would not be enormous. Teacher training should include a substantial module on disadvantage and disability. No teacher should leave a college of education without a very good grounding in the means of addressing this matter. Those who are teaching at second and third levels should also have a basic qualification in these areas. Some people may not like this. They may see it as an extra burden but if we are to bring real equality to our society and our education system, providers of education should have the understanding needed to give the optimum service to disabled people. The Minister must urgently address this matter.
I have always taken a deep interest in second chance education, as has the Labour Party. Quite a number of students go to third level technology colleges with very low leaving certificate grades and undertake courses which they have very little chance of completing. When young people drop out of the system they are very seldom picked up and given a second chance at education. I welcome the initiative announced by the Minister this year to introduce grants to students on PLC courses although I do not agree with capping those grants. The PLC sector has tremendous potential for growth and for contributing to those suffering disadvantage. People should be moved through the PLC system back to formal education.
Many of those involved in community employment schemes work in caring occupations, caring for the disabled or the elderly. Many people who take CES courses attain a high level of competence but they receive no formal qualification. The Minister should institute an education component to CES courses so that the level of competence achieved by participants in caring and other areas can be recognised in an educational attainment. The Minister should put a structure in place which could lead people back into the education system.
Politicians of various parties are fond of listing the achievements and failures of various Governments. However, we are all agreed that a large and growing problem exists and it is incumbent on the Oireachtas and particularly on the Government to address it. Unless the approach to solving the problem is structured to include various Departments and local authorities, and people within the system are made responsible and accountable, the problem will remain unsolved for many years.
Educational disadvantage is one of the most important features of the poverty cycle. It has been proved beyond doubt that early intervention in a child's life can prevent him or her from being unemployed in later years. The Labour Party in Government recognised the importance of education in the formative years of a child's life by introducing the Early Start Programme. Unfortunately, this work has not been continued by the Government. There are schools in very disadvantaged areas in which the number of teachers was reduced last September even though they were earmarked under the Breaking the Cycle Programme. These cut-backs display a lack of interest by the Government in tackling educational disadvantage.
During her tenure as Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach increased the number of teachers in many disadvantaged schools as part of the Breaking the Cycle Programme. It is inconsiderate and appalling that her work has not been continued by the Government and is even being reversed. When the Breaking the Cycle Programme was introduced very clear ground rules were laid down concerning the allocation of teachers. It was agreed that the allocation under the programme would not be altered throughout the five year pilot scheme. The cut back in teacher numbers in a number of disadvantaged schools is a gross interference by the Government and reflects a lack of interest in tackling the educational needs of those living in disadvantaged communities.
Any movement to reduce teacher numbers in disadvantaged schools is in breach of the national anti-poverty strategy to which the Government has declared its commitment. The national anti-poverty strategy includes a commitment to reduce early school leaving and to tackle educational disadvantage. In reaching these objectives the national anti-poverty strategy identified pre-school education, the Breaking the Cycle initiative and special needs education as the keys to ensuring the maximum participation in our education system. The Government's decision to cut back on the number of teachers in schools which were earmarked under the Breaking the Cycle Programme represents a breach of the commitments made in the national anti-poverty strategy.
Of those who left school in 1995, a staggering 18 per cent had no qualification beyond the junior certificate. The majority of these students came from areas which had high levels of poverty and disadvantage. Others in this group experienced learning difficulties at their schools but left because the education system did not cater for their needs. This staggering rate of early school leaving will not be resolved until we reach a point where children's needs at pre-school and primary school levels are catered for.
Educational disadvantage can be compounded by the low level of literacy among parents. Not only does this mean that parents cannot assist their children with homework but many are less effective at campaigning for additional teachers and resources in their areas. For this reason, disadvantaged areas should be given fair treatment in the context of expenditure.
Access to remedial teachers is vital in most schools. Not all children start out in education at the same level and the longer learning difficulties are ignored the more disadvantaged children become. In rural areas access to remedial teachers can be aggravated by the fact that an assigned teacher is allocated to a large area. This is the case in my constituency and the result is that the teacher spends most of the working day travelling between schools instead of teaching. Sparsely populated rural areas experience other educational disadvantage in the provision of educational services for children with special needs, including physical or mental handicap. It is impossible to eliminate educational disadvantage in one or two budgets but the reduction in the teacher numbers in schools in the Breaking the Cycle Programme sends all the wrong signals to parents and children who are trapped in poverty.
Debate adjourned.