Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Dec 2002

Vol. 559 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Primary Education: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, concerned for the welfare and educational prospects of primary school children:

notes that Irish schools have some of the largest class sizes and the fewest back-up services in western Europe;

notes that 28% of children in Irish schools have special needs, many of which are not identified in time and for many of whom there is a lack of specialist support;

concerned that the recently announced embargo on recruitment in the public service will adversely affect the availability of specialist teachers in addition to the 400 extra teachers promised under PPF;

deplores the lack of Government commitment to tackle educational disadvantage;

appalled that thousands of pupils and teachers are forced to risk their health and safety by spending their school hours in grossly substandard classroom accommodation in hundreds of primary schools throughout the country; and

concerned that the Government has cut the budget for primary school buildings by almost €70 million for 2003 and 2004,

condemns the Government for its abject failure to live up to its pre-election promises and challenges the Minister for Education and Science to set out the cause of his failure to address the crisis in primary education.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Perry, Crawford, Deenihan, McCormack and Durkan, by agreement.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move the motion in my name and that of my Fine Gael colleagues. We thought a lot about this motion before bringing it to the House. It is a recognition of the poor state of primary school education. From school buildings to the provision of qualified teachers to the care of disadvantaged people, this Government has failed spectacularly.

The programme for Government drawn up close to six months ago commits the Government to a continued reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio. The Government promised to introduce maximum class guidelines to ensure the average size of classes for children under nine is below the international best practice guideline of 20:1. The reality is very different. Between 10% and 20% of primary school pupils are in classes that meet Government targets. However, the average class size is 29 pupils with up to 35 in some classes. Despite a recent OECD report showing a pupil teacher rate of 21:1, the reality for many children in Ireland is different. The Department of Education and Science's statistics, and those of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, show that 125,000 primary school children are in classes of 30 or more. Some 250,000 children are in classes ranging in size from 20 to 29.

The curriculum has changed immensely over the years and the demands on teachers are increasing. The face of classrooms has changed immeasurably also. Classes have pupils of different ability and different needs, who speak different languages and for whom English is a second language. Never has it been more necessary to reduce class sizes. Children need to be in classes of no more than 20 to maximise their potential. In light of the Government's and Minister's statistics the potential of only between 10% and 20% of children is being maximised. Between 80% and 90% of children are failing to reach their full potential because of the actions of this Government. There is nowhere the Government can hide from that statistic as it is based on the Department's figures.

I am disappointed that the Minister for Education and Science is not in the House but am sure that he will attend at some point in the debate. In his first words in this House following his appointment, the Minister pledged his commitment to tackling educational disadvantage. One of the first cuts made by the same Minister was in the area of disadvantage – needless to say the cuts were not announced in the House as that would be too much to expect. His very words were: "The focus of my tenure as Minister will be on tackling education disadvantage and looking after those who are not very vocal." He then slashed €11 million from planned initiatives to reduce school drop-out rates and to attract students from disadvantaged backgrounds to third level education – that is some commitment.

The education system is failing many students, particularly those who leave school at an early age. Instead of targeting, assisting and encouraging these students to stay within the education system this Government boldly turned its back on them. This Government's ability to cherish all the children of the nation equally is questionable.

The report on the forum on disadvantage highlights clearly the importance of support at an early age to allow these children to benefit from education. Does the Minister understand the reality of educational disadvantage? Children in disadvantaged areas have a one in three chance of under-achievement and early drop-out, leading to a bleak future of poverty, social exclusion and unemployment. They are coming to school cold, hungry, malnourished and without warm clothes and returning home in the same condition. What hope or chance is the Government giving them? It is giving a future the same as the present, without any hope of a way out. The Minister now seems to have decided that third level students, and not his Department, are responsible for these children and their education.

The failure to retain teachers in primary schools in disadvantaged areas is a failure of this Government and it is with it that responsibility rests. It is because this issue has been ignored for so long that it has now come to this sorry pass. The Minister will not get away with passing the responsibility for retaining these teachers onto third level students. His statement that the only way to keep teachers in disadvantaged schools is to pay bonuses, and the only way to raise this money is to re-introduce third level fees, was the most cynical move of this Government to date, not to mention being contrary to the Minister's much lauded notion of ring-fencing for third level funding, if charges are re-introduced. It is this Government which has presided over a spectacular failure to keep teachers in disadvantaged schools and it is its problem, not that of third level students, to sort out.

The commitment of the Government to doing that is questionable in light of last week's budget. Funding for running costs in schools has been cut back in real terms and the Government is capping numbers in the public service. Can the Government guarantee that this area will not be hit? Every Minister seems to have guaranteed that his or her area will not be hit but some area has to be hit. We need to know which areas are involved. I have no faith that this will not interfere with and affect disadvantaged schools.

In disadvantaged and other schools, there are between 30,000 and 40,000 children taught by teachers without primary teaching qualifications. Only half of this shortfall in primary school teachers is made up by qualified secondary teachers. The other 15,000 to 20,000 are taught by unqualified people. School principals must spend their Saturdays and Sundays ringing around the local area to try to get somebody to come into a classroom. They will take almost anybody they can get in their desperation to have somebody in the classroom for Monday morning. It is a significant problem.

All children are entitled to the basic requirement of a fully trained and qualified teacher. I accept that the Minister has made some attempt to increase the number of graduates, but more needs to be done. Giving children an equal chance is not possible without giving them an equal start. The Government is failing to do this. Schools in disadvantaged areas are bearing the brunt of this failure.

The most outrageous failure of this Government, the Department of Education and Science and the Minister is the crisis with regard to school buildings. It is a failure of the current Government and the previous Administration that has been in office since 1997. I would allow the Minister an exemption from responsibility for the appalling state of primary schools up to May of this year had he not been a member of the previous Administration, but he was. Every member of that Administration is collectively responsible for the state of primary schools and not one can shirk that, try as he or she might.

The horror stories are real and cannot be exaggerated. I debated this on the Adjournment of the House last week and the reality is as I pointed out then. It is easy to see the truth behind the newspaper stories when one visits these schools. I can understand that the Minister might be slow to visit the schools because they do not provide quite the same photo opportunity for someone in his position as standing in front of a shining new school funded by a public private partnership. Those shining new schools are few and far between and are not the reality that most of our primary school students experience.

Camross national school in County Laois is one example. It is described as cramped and higgledy-piggledy, with a tiny room serving as a staff room, principal's office, secretary's office, cleaning supply room, cupboard, kitchen, reception and meeting room. One little room does all that. There is no storage space or PE room. When the resource teacher is available to the school, she must travel down the road to use a cottage provided by the local community to teach. Children have to be brought up and down to that building for their time with the resource teacher. The school has had plans completed for a number of years, it received planning permission for work and, in 1998, it was estimated that it would take €800,000 to provide a new school. Nothing has been done since and it will cost the Department of Education and Science a lot more to do the work four years later.

New Ross CBS in Wexford has been trying to get a new school since 1973. The school is on three separate sites and some of the prefabs are 30 years old. At Gaelscoil Sáirséail in Limerick, one building was built in 1763. That is well over 200 years ago and it is quite unbelievable it is still used. The school is located on a split campus with no ventilation or natural light in most rooms, which are all smaller than recommended. There is one square yard of playground for every pupil.

At Charleville national school in Tullamore, the conditions can only be described as disgraceful and disgusting. There is no other way of putting it. I have visited there on numerous occasions, announcements have been made now and then but the school is still in the same condition. It is horrible to have to visit it let alone to attend as a pupil or a teacher, day after day, with out hope of amendment or provision of facilities. One could give examples from any county or constituency. Six months ago these schools thought they would finally see the promised land and that they would be saved from such deplorable conditions with the help of Government party candidates. Local newspapers and radio were filled with good news press releases. They were told the cheques were in the post and that they should not fear because their school was on the list. That turned out to be a work of fiction which will probably make the Christmas best-sellers list and which we, in this House, have been reading in recent months.

I know the Minister will tell me that Government expenditure in 2003 will be €172.6 million and that 120 major capital projects in the primary sector have recently been completed or are under construction. How recently were they completed? When will the projects under construction be completed? The Minister will deny that the schools on the list were due to start construction and, therefore, they were not included in the 2002 construction programme. However, he must face the fact that that is not the impression the Government gave six months ago.

I welcome the plans to prioritise the schools building programme. We, in Fine Gael, said that should be done a long time ago. However, that is only part of the problem. Another part of the problem is the provision of funding. If the Minister prioritises this area, as he says he will in January, where will the schools be which are currently on the list? They do not know where they are on the list at present, but they want to know if they will be further down the list after prioritisation.

I tabled 134 parliamentary questions to the Minister last week as a result of contacts I had received and research I had done in the area. The Minister's response was a disgrace. Every Member in the House is entitled to answers to parliamentary questions, but the answers I received to those questions were unacceptable. The Minister said I should consult the Department's website. I did that before I tabled the questions, but it did not provide any information. It did not tell me anything I did not know already. I asked the Minister when the work would commence, when he expected it to be completed and the length of delays due to the cut in the Estimates. He told me he would announce his expenditure proposals for primary school buildings in the new year and that it was not possible at this point to indicate when architectural planning or construction will commence. There are seven stages in the architectural planning process. I do not accept it is not possible to tell us where each school is on the list. They must be at some point in the architectural planning process. The Minister only needs to look at the file and give us the basic information. The schools and we, as Members of this House, are entitled to that information. I will continue to table those questions every week, which will keep someone employed on a full-time basis, because I am entitled to the answers.

The Minister said that the primary responsibility for health and safety in schools rests with the boards of management. That may be the case, but it is unfair to blame schools and boards of management for the state of schools. The majority of them are looking after schools to the best of their ability with the resources they have. However, they cannot cope with the work which must be done, particularly to old schools, with the resources they receive. I am sure I will be provided with a list of figures from 1997 to 2002, as is the usual response. However, it is time the Minister accepted that schools do not want a history lesson. They want to know where they stand in 2002 and when the work will commence. It is time the Minister and the Government realised their responsibilities and commitment to these schools. They should do their job and ensure that schools are improved.

I thank Deputy Enright for sharing time with me. Children are the future of the human race. However, the Government does not recognise that core principle. The commitment given before the election about investment in schools has not been met. I know several schools in County Sligo, such as Riverstown national school. The cameras were out when the Minister for Finance visited it before the election. He said the contract would be awarded and the school would be built. However, it is not on the list. Other schools include Coolaney national school, Holywell national school in Tubbercurry, High Park school in west Sligo and Dromore West national school. The reduction in the fund means that €3 million will be taken from the capital building programme in Sligo in 2003 and 2004.

It is not good enough that 28% of children with special needs are not identified in time. They cannot be identified while there are inadequate schools. The core value of the 21st century is education. We are talking about equality. It is unfair that children must attend inadequate schools. There are up to 50 children in one classroom in Riverstown national school. It does not have sanitary or IT facilities and the playground surface is concrete. That is not good enough.

People are told to look up the Department website for information. The Minister said that up to 400 schools are on the list. It is disgraceful that promises were made. The publication of the list is not any consolation. There must have been mismanagement because the money was wasted in many areas. Many national schools could have been upgraded in County Sligo. This is an important issue. It is unfair that parents and taxpayers, who expect equality of treatment and of services, must send their children to a national school in such deplorable conditions. There are some great schools, but that is not any consolation. There should not be a variation in standards. It is totally unfair if one area has state-of-the-art facilities, while another area five miles down the road has 19th century facilities. That is not good enough.

The Minister cut €70 million from the schools building programme, but he did not indicate the timescale. I know people who have been told that the money is gone and that the job will not be done. I do not have any doubt that more promises will be made in the run-up to the general election in three years' time. People will then be told that the work will be done. People will not accept that.

It is not good enough that people suffer educational disadvantage. Remedial teachers are important and that work must be done. It is deplorable that this is allowed to continue. There is significant unrest. The Minister mentioned the retention of teachers in disadvantaged areas. I do not blame teachers who must work with inadequate facilities and in schools without cloakrooms or IT and staff facilities. Teachers are dedicated to their work. I am often amazed that teachers can work in the schools in which the Minister expects them to work. There is not any standard. I applaud the teachers who work in such conditions every day. Talk is not good enough on this important issue. The Minister must take action and he must indicate when funding will be made available.

I congratulate Deputy Enright for tabling this motion. Many commitments and guarantees were given before the election about how much money was available and how much could be spent. Many schools were told they were on the list and assured that their movement up it was only a matter of time. The Irish Times compiled a list of over 400 schools, which I welcome because there is now some degree of clarity for them in that they know nothing will happen to them. However, others which were expecting works to be carried out were not included. In my own county I see the example of Drumacruttin national school. Remedial teaching and other difficult problems have to be taken care of in the hallway while other children pass by on their way to the toilets. Part of the school is housed in an old prefabricated building, it is built along a dangerous road and the facilities available to it are unreal. Rackwallace national school just down the road does not even have an inside toilet for teachers or pupils who have to go outside on snowy and frosty days, something one would not have expected after the Celtic tiger. As neither school is among the 400 named the question of where they stand must be addressed.

Connons national school, which is well known to the Ceann Comhairle, has been put on hold. It is part of a project that has received cross-Border funding and an agreement was made that it should start to take advantage of that funding before it was too late. How can the Minister justify putting an idea like that on hold? The parish was one of the first to establish a truly cross-Border project in which its schools worked with the Protestant schools in Aughnacloy to build a relationship that has not been equalled else where. It was accomplished at a time when it was not easy. Grant aid to buy computers was obtained, but it was desired to go further to establish a first class learning facility along the Border. EU funding was received under the peace and reconciliation fund and the site was dug out, but the Department of Education and Science has put the project on hold. I beg the Minister to ensure that a project that is part and parcel of true cross-Border co-operation be permitted to continue.

Corracrin national school also needs to be developed while the Model School in Monaghan needs dramatic improvement, but is not on the list as one of the 400. Since the last election I must, unfortunately, cover some of the schools in Cavan. Ballyconnell Central School is an old timber prefabricated building consisting of two classrooms and eight of its pupils have to be looked after during special needs classes in the hallway, including one who is in a wheelchair. The other children must pass through that hall on their way to the toilet, as must anyone coming into the school. What sort of environment is that for teachers? Three years ago they were promised a new school, but they have seen no further developments. Cavan No. 1 national school and Ballybay complained last year and were told by a certain Senator that he had a phone and would ring the Department to get the problems they mentioned sorted out, but the election is over and nothing has been done.

He must have a Dictaphone.

Lisboduff national school outside Cootehill is desperate. The list goes on and I take no pleasure in mentioning these schools in the House. I get the blame for it even though I am in Opposition and I would like to see the needs of primary school children taken care of. We should not keep them in buildings that we would condemn if others were using them. We should not condemn these children to that sort of treatment.

I compliment Deputy Enright on her presentation. It is heartening to listen to a young Deputy with such a sound grasp of her brief. She performed well this evening.

According to the recent OECD school rankings report, Ireland still has one of the lowest levels of education spending among almost 30 developed countries. When one considers the amount of wealth we have created over the last ten years, such neglect of our children and young people is a serious indictment of our system. Given that they represent the future, if we are to prioritise any sector of society this should be it. Unfortunately, we are not doing it in terms of education, health or housing. Ireland spent just 4.6% of national income on education in 1999 and though that has improved since, the Minister acknowledged this low level of funding in his reaction to the report in question. The report showed that the average primary school class numbers 25 pupils, while the OECD average is 22. We all visit primary schools and it is obvious that teachers are working in overcrowded conditions.

The recent INTO survey says it all. Up to 40,000 primary school pupils are not being taught by qualified teachers with schools in disadvantaged areas bearing the brunt of the shortage of trained staff. If any group should be facilitated it is the disadvantaged. When the comprehensive school system was established in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Government encouraged teachers to enter it by providing them with an extra allowance. Teachers should be encouraged to teach in disadvantaged areas in the same way.

The report examined the overall training of primary teachers, a process which takes three years. If there are still unqualified personnel in charge of classes in primary schools in 2005, INTO members will refuse to work in them. That warning was issued by the general secretary and as sure as day follows night we will have returned to this matter in three years. If the present attitude of the Government prevails there will be a problem.

There are now 1,600 primary school teaching jobs not filled by primary teachers which is serious. Young children need to be attended to by the most qualified personnel. We are discussing the Arts Bill on Committee Stage tomorrow while there is a major lack of arts education in our system, principally because we do not have the staff. Physical education, an area I am particularly interested in, is almost non-existent in about 70% of our schools. The teachers are not there, the facilities do not exist and there is a lack of confidence. We are producing an unfit race of young people because of our lack of focus on this vulnerable sector of the community. The recent budget means schools will get an average of 50 cent per child per day to cover day-to-day running costs, provision for which is now more in the hands of parents and boards of management than those of the Department of Education and Science. It puts terrible pressure on parents who have to rear their children while collecting funding to run their schools. Insurance and heating costs have spiralled. It is time the Government and the nation prioritised education.

I compliment Deputy Enright on tabling this motion which I hope will have some effect in highlighting the deplorable conditions in primary schools throughout the country. Some of the primary schools are in such a bad state that if a health and safety inspector visited them they would have to be closed down. I hope this debate will lead to some action in the matter but I am not sure it will. The Minister of State is present and listening to the debate. We see him so often on Private Members' time, that he is almost a Minister of State for Private Members. I am sorry the Minister for Education and Science is not present but I hope the message will get back to him because he cannot continue to ignore the problem in our primary schools. He is putting his head in the sand in refusing to meet deputations from parents and boards of management. He will meet his fellow Ministers on various matters but he refuses to meet deputations from school boards and parents.

The boards of management of probably half the schools in my constituency of West Galway have been in touch with me about various complaints and delays in sanctioning repairs for their schools. I have been contacted by schools such as Bushypark, Coldwood, Maree, St. Nicholas, the Claddagh, Tooreeney, Oughterard and many more.

A number of schools have leaking roofs, draughty windows, porous doors, broken floors, and broken toilets while some classes are taken in cloakrooms. I visited a school recently where 90 children used the one toilet bowl. Teaching has become such a strenuous occupation that teachers, parents and boards of management have enough to worry about without the fact that they cannot get their schools repaired due to the red tape and six or seven stages involved, at any one of which work can be delayed. Boards of management and parents' committees do not know where they stand at any time. There should be a clear statement indicating that work will not be done for two years, or that it will be done in three years. Some schools ten or 11 years after making application still do not know where they are on the list. The Fine Gael motion asks that this matter be addressed by the Minister.

I compliment my colleague, Deputy Enright, for tabling this motion and giving us an opportunity to air this issue in the House. There is no more emotive subject, with the possible exception of health, that draws more reaction from the general public, particularly from parents whose children are attending unfit schools. The sad thing about this is that it comes in the wake of the Celtic tiger which according to all reports has been roving the fields of Ireland for the past five years. The Celtic tiger was supposed to bring benefits to all and sundry but nothing happened in education. When cutbacks were envisaged about a year ago, all that happened in the Department of Education and Science was that the Minister of the day trotted out stories about all the Government had done in the past five years. We have heard much about that during the past six months also.

One of the most cynical exercises of all time was that every time a parliamentary question was tabled in the House the response was the same to each question. It brought a cynicism into the House that never existed before. Sadly, this is continuing under the new Administration and the Minister appears to think it is his duty to tell the Opposition to get lost, that it is his job to run the country and the world and that we should go to the Internet if we want answers. There are two ways we can do this. I have warned several times in the House what the consequences of that policy will be and I do not wish to make threats or to issue the warning again. If the Minister persists in that fashion there is a simple way to resolve the problem for him. If he refuses to answer questions in the House about sensitive issues that is tough, but it is his responsibility.

If a Member tables a question on a specific school and it is embarrassing for the Minister and if he cannot give a positive reply, that is tough. It is tough that he is in that Department and not doing the job he or his predecessor should have done during the past 12 months.

I do not wish to go through the various schools in my constituency in respect of which the INTO issued a report a year ago highlighting the places where ordinary health and safety standards do not apply and drawing to the attention of parents and the boards of management in the respective schools the danger to their children. I wonder whether this exercise means anything to the Minister or the Department of Education and Science because when we raise questions about those same schools we are told to go to the Internet.

I have been a Member of this House for a greater number of years than the Minister for Education and Science. In my time here I have never known of anybody being asked to go to the newspapers, the media, or any other source to get information in reply to a parliamentary question. If that is the way the Department and the Minister propose to pursue the education programme there will be an interesting time ahead over the next couple of years in this House.

It is all very fine for the Minister and the Department to presume to exclude the Opposition from what is being done. There is a system whereby Government backbenchers can be informed in advance about which of the 400 schools will be lucky and while that may go down well at the various Cumann meetings it does not provide for accountability to the House. Whether the Minister likes it or not that is where it all begins and ends. If he does not wish to be responsible to the House that is tough luck. I could list the schools in my constituency in respect of which I have repeatedly tabled parliamentary questions. The Minister in very few cases deigns to answer, but if that continues there will be another way. A famous slogan by a famous party in a famous election not so long ago was "There is another way". There is another way, and unless the Minister faces up to his responsibilities in education he will find out what that other way is in a short time.

This issue is one which occupies the minds of the parents of children attending schools all over the country. It may have been fine to be able to palm off the Opposition and give a glib reply. I am not suggesting the Minister of State, sitting opposite, is guilty of this but it is not such a good idea to give the impression to the parents, children and the teachers involved in education that he is glib with them or to suggest they should go to the Internet to find out what the future holds for them.

I ask the Minister of State to convey to his colleague the urgency of the situation and to point out that the situation is serious. Now, immediately after the Celtic tiger period, it is disastrous. I ask the Minister of State to convey that to the Minister as a matter of urgency.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann," and substitute the following:

"noting that some 2,900 additional teaching posts have been created in the primary school sector since 1997, significantly improving the overall pupil-teacher ratio from 21.7 to 19.0 in the intervening period;

recognising the substantial increase in the level of additional services provided, particularly to schools in disadvantaged areas;

noting the unprecedented levels of investment in special education services arising from the Government's decision in 1998, that all children with special needs in the primary system should be entitled to an automatic response to their needs, irrespective of their level of need or location;

recognising the unparalleled increases since 1998 in the numbers of Special Resource Teachers, Special Needs Assistants, Learning Support (Remedial) Teachers and the level of part-time tuition services provided to support children with special needs;

noting the Government's unprecedented commitment to the prioritisation of funding and supports to address educational disadvantage through a range of targeted programmes and initiatives;

noting the Government's commitment to improving school accommodation as demonstrated by the fourfold increase in funding for primary buildings since 1997; and

noting the dramatic expansion of the school building and refurbishment programme at primary level;

commends the Government for the massive expansion of teaching and other resources to support the education of children in primary schools, particularly those with special educational needs and those who are most disadvantaged and notes the determination of the Minister for Education and Science and the Government to continue the school building programme in order to meet new and emerging needs and to eliminate the substandard accommodation which has accumulated in primary schools because of past under-investment."

I propose to share time with Deputies O'Connor, Killeen and Brendan Smith.

I apologise for the Minister's unavoidable absence from the Chamber tonight. I assure Deputies that I will convey their views to the Minister who will be in the House tomorrow to contribute to the debate.

Tá áthas orm deis a fháil páirt a ghlacadh san díospóireacht thábhachtach seo faoi oideachas. Tar éis an díospóireachta seo beidh sé breá soiléir go bhfuil go leor déanta ag Rialtas Fhianna Fáil agus an Pháirtí Dhaonlathaigh ó 1997 i leith. Admhaím go bhfuil go leor le déanamh agus déanfaidh an Rialtas é idir seo agus deireadh a thréimhse.

Ar ndóigh tá an Fhreasúra ag cáineadh an Rialtais. Tá cuimhne ghearr acu-san. Níl siad ag amharc siar ar an tréimhse nuair a bhí siadsan i gcumacht agus ar an méid a rinneadh idir 1994 and 1997.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to endorse the achievement of this Government in addressing the needs of the primary sector.

Will the Minister of State's speech be circulated?

There should be copies available. I can understand why Deputy Enright said she does not want a history lesson. I know that people do not want history lessons but we must learn from the past and must look at the period from 1994 to 1997.

On a point of order, I hoped we had conveyed to the Minister of State that we did not want to revisit history.

I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister speak without interruption. There is limited time for this debate.

If I had only ten seconds left to contribute I would rest my case. The Opposition does not want to hear about 1994 to 1997 when very little was invested in education.

We do not want to hear the same rubbish we heard before.

Whether the Deputy likes it or not he will listen to the facts. I have as much right to be heard as the Opposition. I did not utter a word while the Opposition made its contribution.

What about the 2,900 additional teaching posts created in primary schools since 1997 at an annual cost of €116 million? These have enabled the introduction of a wide range of improvements. These include: a reduction in the overall maximum class size in primary schools by reference to the staffing schedule from 35 in the 1995-96 school year to 29 in the 2002-03 school year; the lowering of the figure to 12 pupils for the appointment and retention of the first mainstream class teacher; the reduction in enrolment figures required for the appointment of administrative principals to ordinary schools and Gaelscoileanna; the appointment of administrative principals to ordinary schools where there are nine or more teachers, including ex-quota posts; the allocation of resource teaching posts to either individual schools or clusters of schools where needs are identified; the allocation of teaching posts to schools where 13 or more pupils with significant English language deficits are identified and the allocation of additional learning support teaching posts and the establishment of the programme Giving Children an Even Break.

In recent years there has been a particular focus on reducing class size in schools in disadvantaged areas. The 30 schools in the Breaking the Cycle programme operate to a maximum class size of 15:1 for junior classes and 27:1 for senior classes.

The Giving Children an Even Break programme was launched in January 2001 and it subsumed the previous process of designation of schools that served areas of educational disadvantage. A maximum class size of 20:1 in junior classes and 27:1 in senior classes applies in all schools in the programme.

An Agreed Programme for Government contains a commitment to continue to reduce the pupil teacher ratio in our schools, to progressively introduce maximum class size guidelines which will ensure that the average size of classes for children in junior classes will be below international best practice guidelines of 20:1—

That promise will be broken too.

It contains a commitment to implement changes to retention and support policies which will assist schools in areas of significant disadvantage to recruit and retain teachers.

The Government's response to children with special educational needs has been unprecedented.

That is for sure.

Since it decided that all children with special needs in the primary system should be entitled to an automatic response to their needs, the level of investment in special education services has been vastly increased. The Government's commitment to the special needs area is reflected across the spectrum of provision. The number of special resource teachers supporting children with special needs in ordinary primary schools will have grown from approximately 100 at the end of 1998 to more than 2,200 by the end of this year. The number of special needs assistants in the primary system will have grown from approximately 300 to 3,800 full-time and a further 1,000 part-time assistants over the same period.

People should be on their knees in thanks.

This Government has ensured that children assessed as requiring these services now have ready access to special teachers and special needs assistants dedicated to making sure that they gain maximum benefit from the education system.

Will the Minister of State give way for a question? Has he any comment to make on the Minister for Education and Science's assertion in committee last week that there is a major problem in our schools in regard to the need to supply such resource and special education teachers and that there may be underlying health problems associated with this? The Minister also said that the ratio in other countries is very different from that in Ireland.

I would like to be able to use the time for the Government tonight. The Minister will address that question tomorrow.

The Minister of State does not believe a word of his speech, whoever wrote it.

We did not infringe on the Opposition's time. I would like to continue with this serious debate. Deputy McCormack is being quite frivolous about my contribution. The Minister will address the question tomorrow.

Deputy McCormack, the Minister is entitled to make his contribution without interruption. The Opposition had 40 minutes and was allowed make its contribution without interruption.

Despite the huge increase in the level of funding for primary school buildings and renovation over the past several years, there has been a corresponding level of demand due to an historical deficit in investment in this area. All of the problems relating to school accommodation cannot be addressed overnight. However, the Government is committed to continuing the work that it has started on the renewal of infrastructure in the primary sector and to consolidating the substantial progress already made in meeting the needs of primary schools over time. The investment in educational infrastructure begun during the previous administration will be continued and the allocation of €147 million will enable consolidation of the considerable progress that has already been made.

This Government can be justifiably proud of the massive expansion of teaching and other resources it has allocated in recent years to support the education of children in primary schools, particularly those with special educational needs and those who are most disadvantaged. It will continue, through the school building programme, to meet the new and emerging needs and to eliminate the substandard accommodation which has accumulated in primary schools because of past under-investment.

Molaim an leasú don Teach.

Is it in order, a Cheann Comhairle, to ask a Minister or another Member to give way to allow a question?

It is entirely at the discretion of the Member in possession to give way.

My question is as to whether I am in order in making such a request.

The Deputy would be within his rights in doing so towards the end of a contribution. I would ask Deputies to refrain where a Minister or any Member on either side of the House has only five or ten minutes.

Does that mean we cannot ask a question of the Minister?

It is entirely at the discretion of the Member in possession. The standing order allows for such a request towards the end of a contribution. I call Deputy O'Connor.

While I am reluctant to begin in the middle of—

This is supposed to be a debate.

I would be happy to engage in a debate with the Deputy if time permitted. However, it is wrong that I should be obstructed when I am under pressure of time. I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. I welcome the comments of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. I also compliment the Opposition spokesperson, Deputy Enright, on her work in this regard. Although we may have to agree to disagree on some issues, I wish her well.

While I do not wish to raise any hackles, one would get the impression from listening to some of the Members opposite that the Minister for Education and Science and his Department officials are doing nothing to improve the welfare of primary school children. That is just not true. There are problems with regard to the condition of many of our schools and we wish to have matters put right immediately. However, the reality is that the money is just not there. As a Deputy for Dublin South West, including Tallaght, I have raised a number of important issues concerning my constituency since my election some months ago, including the condition of schools at Glenasmole, St. Killians at Castleview, Bishop Shanahan and Bishop Galvin schools at Orwell and many other issues. In that regard, I will continue to do my job. That is what people want me to do without fear or favour and that is the reason they voted for me and other colleagues last May.

Contrary to the impression from the Opposition side that nothing is being done, the reality is quite different. Next year, the Minister for Education and Science will spend €147 million on capital investment in the primary schools sector, in addition to nearly €173 million spent this year when more than 120 primary school capital projects were completed and 1,700 grants for national schools were sanctioned at a cost of €61 million. My only comment to the Minister in that regard is "well done" and, to quote the sound-bite "a lot done, more to do". The Minister and his officials have my full support.

Some schools in my constituency are in the disadvantaged schools category. I congratulate the Minister on increasing the number of resource teachers on a national basis to 2,200 from a low base of 100 in 1998. In the same period, the number of special needs assistants has increased to 3,800 full time and 1,000 part time, from a base of 300. More than 225 additional learning support teachers have also been provided during that period. Expenditure on special equipment for children with special needs has increased from €650,000 to €3.3 million. More than €43 million is spent on the special school transport service. One could quote many more facts. I have listed but a few of the actions taken by the Minister for Education and Science and his Department. This House should applaud the Minister and his officials for their achievements to date and support them in moving to meet the needs of our constituencies over the coming years.

Each of us has a responsibility to our constituents and our communities to raise those issues. My position on the Government side of the House does not prevent me from questioning the Minister in the House and pursuing issues raised with me at public meetings, at my clinics or as I meet people in the Square in Tallaght on a daily basis. I am happy to have contributed briefly to this debate and I look forward to its continuation tomorrow.

Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an leasú a mhol an tAire Stáit. Chaith me breis agus 20 bliain mar mhúinteoir bunscoile, an chéad bhliain mar chúntóir agus an chuid eile den ama mar phríomhoide, i scoil bheag tuaithe. Ar feadh breis agus leath den ama sin lasadh mé tine ins an dá sheomra nuair a thágadh mé ar scoil gach maidin, le cabhair ó chuid de na daltaí móra. Ní fhaca mé ariamh múinteoir feabhais nó cúntóir speisialta. Fiú nuair a bhí triúir mhúinteoir agus beagnach 100 dalta sa scoil ní raibh a leithéid le fáil againn. Ceapadh mé mar phríomhoide i ndá scoil, agus an chéad rud a bhí le déanamh agam an dá uair ná córas uisce a fháil agus leithris a chur isteach ins na scoileanna. Bliain amháin bhí 43 pháiste á múineadh le chéile agam i gcúig rang. Ní 100 bliain ó shin a tharla na rudaí seo ach i dtús na n-ochtóidí.

Insím an scéal seo chun a léiriú go raibh droch am sa bhunoideachas a bhí i bhfad níos measa ná mar atá rudaí anois agus go bhfuil dul chun cinn iontach déanta le 10 mbliain anuas, agus go mórmhór le cúig bliain anuas. Insím é freisin chun an t-easpa infheistíocht a bhí san oideachas bunscoile leis na cianta a léiriú.

Ní fhéadfadh éinne milleán a chur ar mhúinteoirí nó ar thuismitheoirí as ucht a bheith ag gearáin faoi na fadhbanna sa chóras bhunoideachais ach tá sé deacair aird a thabhairt ar pholaiteoirí agus ar pháirtí polaitíochta a bhí ina mbaill den Rialtas cúig nó sé bliain ó shin nuair a bhí an scéal céanna á léiriú acu. Bhí seans ag gach páirtí dul chun cinn a dhéanamh agus cur leis an córas. Níor chuir aon pháirtí an infheistíocht cheart isteach sa chóras bhunoideachais.

Tremendous progress has been made in primary education in recent years, particularly over the past five years. I am conscious that nearly all of that progress has taken place since I finished my career as a teacher. In 1992, when I last taught, there were virtually no remedial teachers. There were certainly none outside of very big schools. There were no special needs classroom assistants and resource teachers were unheard of. That situation pre-dated the era of inclusiveness in integrating special needs children into ordinary primary schools. In most rural areas, the de facto situation was that all children from a school catchment population attended that school because they did not generally have access to special schools. For many rural schools, there has been no substantial change in the situation. Also, there was no part time tuition available to students who needed such support. The schools psychological service had just begun but had not yet developed to any significant extent. While it is not mentioned specifically in the motion or the amendment before the House, it is one of the areas that will continue to need extra resources and attention.

A very worrying belief has been mentioned by a number of speakers. A higher percentage of Irish children are presenting with special needs than is the case in other countries. We do not have definite figures but, if it is true, it is a worrying trend. There is a substantially increased demand for services due to the incidence of autism, ADD, Asperger's syndrome and other conditions and there is a major question regarding the numbers presenting but this is a question for health and medical professionals. It is an area we must examine closely to establish if we have a particular problem and what the causes are.

Anyone would be impressed that 2,900 extra teaching posts have been created in primary education since 1997 and that the ratio is now 19:1 as opposed to 21.7:1. Primary education is undoubtedly the most important aspect of education and the teacher-pupil ratio is one of the important factors in achieving the best results at that level and throughout the education system. There is need to take account of the needs of special needs children and that has been happening gradually which has created difficulties for the building programme. The schools I described, which did not have even basic services like water and flush toilets in the 1970s and into the 1980s, were certainly not in a position to accommodate special classes or remedial and resource teachers in terms of classroom size. There were difficulties in relation to special needs assistants. The building programme has many defects due to the fact there was poor investment in infrastructure and primary education generally until recently. The effects of that past under-investment continue to dog individual schools listed by a number of Deputies. I could list some too if I was put to it.

One of the areas expected to address the difficulties is the public private partnership area. I would like to see a thorough cost-benefit analysis of that versus the traditional tender-contract system. We also urgently need to examine the cost-effectiveness of providing pre-fabricated buildings. In relation to the building programme, the Minister is correct to take stock and ensure that expenditure on consultants' fees for projects which are several years away from being started is strictly monitored. It would be a great advantage if a grants scheme was available to schools to provide, for instance, a remedial room, resource teacher or relatively minor additional accommodation which, equally, could be provided at modest cost.

Unlike virtually every other speaker, I welcome the Minister's move to publish the list of schools and make the area of school building more transparent. There is no advantage to Government Deputies in pretending they influence the rate at which schools are built. This is a move in the right direction.

I am pleased to contribute to this important debate on a subject of relevance to every parish in the country. We could not get a better analysis – in this House or elsewhere – of primary school education than we got from Deputy Killeen – trí Ghaeilge agus trí Bhéarla – when he outlined the great improvements that have occurred in the last few years, particularly at primary level, and indeed at secondary and third level in education. I am sure, as the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, outlined earlier, the Minister for Education and Science will have an opportunity to deal in detail with the motion put forward by Deputy Enright and her colleagues.

I note from the motion that there are specific references to class sizes, recruitment of teachers for mainstream, special needs and resource classes, the general area of disadvantage, the need to continue with the schools building programme and the concern about inadequate classroom accommodation. Those of us who have taken an interest in education over the years have to acknowledge that substantial progress has been made in all of those areas over the past five years. This contention is borne out when we note that 2,900 additional primary teaching posts have been created since 1997. One of the most important decisions taken in the education area was in 1998 which provided specifically for children with special needs, regardless of their level of need or location. Prior to that, all of us, as public representatives, would have had constant representations in relation to the needs of some children in most primary schools. The decision by then Minister for Education, Deputy Martin, to make appointments at that time has helped thousands of pupils. Prior to that, the number of appointments in the area of special needs was totally inadequate. Progress in the area was long overdue but the concentrated investment since 1997 has improved the situation immensely. That commitment to tackle disadvantage and provide for children is evident when we consider that, at the end of this year, the number of special resource teachers will have increased to 2,200 from approximately 100 in 1998. The number of special needs assistants at primary level will have grown from approximately 300 to 3,800 full time and a further 1,000 part time over the same period of time. Those are welcome appointments which are making a real difference in primary schools throughout the country.

In recent times, there has understandably been much comment about inadequate school buildings and over-crowded classrooms. We need a large-scale schools building programme to bring all accommodation up to the standards that pupils and staff deserve. There are too many schools that lack basic facilities and whose standards are inadequate. It may sound strange to say, but in one respect, I am glad we have over-crowding problems in some schools, particularly in rural Ireland. In most respects, these problems have arisen because of the welcome increase in our population resulting in an increase in the school-going population. Many schools in our smaller towns and villages and rural communities have experienced a considerable increase in their enrolment figures. This trend has put pressure on existing facilities. Similarly, the appointment of thousands of additional teachers in mainstream classes, teaching support for pupils with special needs and resource teachers have all combined to put pressure on existing accommodation. Quite rightly, the teaching appointments were sanctioned because if we were to wait for the extra accommodation to be put in place first, thousands of pupils would have been denied the additional teaching support they needed and are now availing of and which can be improved upon even more. For too long, public representatives had to deal with the problems of declining enrolments, loss of teachers and loss of hope in many rural parishes.

I compliment officials in the building unit of the Department of Education and Science on the administrative and technical side. They have a difficult task. Their work is mainly to provide, at the earliest possible opportunity, quality accommodation in our schools. Their task is never easy – trying to balance fairly the demands and needs of increasing pupil numbers in new housing areas and shifting population trends, leaving excess accommodation in some areas and shortages elsewhere as well as the continuing problem of finite resources. A major primary schools building pro gramme has been undertaken in the last few years and there are now new and extended schools of an excellent standard provided in every county since 1997. I hope the establishment of the national development finance agency will enable more funding to be provided for capital investment in school facilities at primary, secondary, further and third level education.

As Deputy Killeen said, we are not getting good value for money. An 11% professional fee should not be chargeable on every school building. There are people of outstanding competence and ability on the administrative side of the Department and I would like to see those officials aided by more support and personnel being given an opportunity to do more of the planning and design work. If four-teacher schools are to be provided in Cork, Offaly, Galway, Cavan, Carlow, Kilkenny, Limerick and Waterford, why should an architectural design team be appointed in each county to design each school?

Why not have a competent official design a prototype? There are many of them in the Department of Education and Science in Tullamore.

The Deputy should conclude.

Such a prototype could be provided for each school, be they three or four-teacher ones, with the appropriate ancillary accommodation. More building work could be done with the same amount of money by cutting out the unnecessary middle persons.

With the permission of the House, I would like to share time with Deputy O'Shea.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I commend Deputy Enright on the comprehensive motion she has moved, which addresses the real problems facing the primary school system. In demonstrating the current realities in the primary sector, the Fine Gael motion is in stark contrast to many of the points in An Agreed Programme for Government. The Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats programme addresses many issues about which we all feel strongly, but the reality is very different. For example, the programme states:

We will continue to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in our schools. Over the next five years we will progressively introduce maximum class guidelines, which would ensure that the average size of classes for children under nine will be below the international best practice guidelines of 20:1. We will ensure that reducing absenteeism in early school leaving is a core priority over the next five years. The national education welfare board will begin its work this year. We will ensure that every school building attains set modern standards.

These are just some of the aspirations in the programme for Government but the primary school building programme has been halted and there is a freeze on public sector employment. I will return to this point later and I hope the Minister for Education and Science will address my questions in this regard.

The education welfare officers have not been appointed so, in effect, there is a vacuum in that area because the previous legislation no longer applies now that the new Act is in force. In last week's budget, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance did not go up for under 12s – it stayed at the current rate. The OECD has indicated that Ireland has among the largest class sizes in the developed world. The reality, therefore, is very different from the picture that was portrayed in the Programme for Government before the election. People were deceived into thinking we would witness progress in education but that has not happened. In fact, we are going backwards, which is appalling, particularly in the primary sector.

Education has the potential to change people's lives. Disadvantage that may date back generations can be tackled if pupils get a chance in the early stages of the educational process. That has been proven many times by research, yet the Estimates are demonstrating a real halt in progress at a time when the country is still relatively rich. There may be a blip in the national income, but we are at a considerably advanced stage of development and so our educational facilities should move forward.

The Minister of State referred to Breaking the Cycle as one of the achievements of the current Administration, but it is not. That programme was introduced by the former Minister for Education, Ms Niamh Bhreathnach, before Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats took over. It has hardly been expanded upon at all. Similarly the Early Start programme, which began under the Government of which Ms Niamh Bhreathnach was a member, has hardly been expanded either. It is clear that if children get a break at a very early age, and if resources are provided to ensure an even playing field at primary level both for disadvantaged children and those from more privileged backgrounds, that will make a difference. Neither of those programmes, however, has been significantly developed by the current Government.

I will address some of the issues in the motion, including the school building programme which has already been mentioned widely in the debate. Descriptions have been provided of schools that are in dreadful conditions. Although Deputy Killeen delved into the past and we could all do that, given the level of national income we now enjoy, it is appalling that schools have been left in such conditions.

Deputy Enright referred to the age of one of the buildings housing Gaelscoil Sairséal in my constituency, and the fact that it is on two campuses. The pupils have only a pocket-sized area in which to move around outdoors. The second building is a band room that was given to the school by one of the local marching bands because they were so stuck for space.

Another school just outside my constituency, in Adare, County Limerick, is housed in a building that is 600 years old, so that beats the previous example. The conditions are appalling and clarity is required from the Minister as to what is happening with the school building programme. Hundreds of school managements are waiting and wondering what is going on with the famous architectural planning stage. There is also a problem with school building projects that are at tender stage; schools may have received permission to accept tenders but they need to reach the final stage and time is running out to accept the tender they intend to take. Problems exist at all levels of the school building programme and it is a regressive step to have cut the amount of money available for it, particularly at primary level.

Many Members have spoken about children with special needs and I agree that the Government has made progress in that regard. I do not wish to be churlish by failing to give credit where it is due, but there is real concern following the announcement in the budget that public sector jobs are to be frozen. We raised that matter in committee last week with the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Dempsey, who said he did not expect the jobs freeze to affect these areas. That attitude is not good enough, however, for schools that require special needs teachers, not to mention ordinary teachers, educational psychologists, and speech and language therapists. Immediate clarification is required on that point. We need to know that this freeze on public sector jobs will not affect children with special needs – including ADD, autism and Asperger's syndrome – who are among the most disadvantaged in our school system. They cannot benefit from a system that is designed for the average student.

Deputy Stanton asked how such students are being diagnosed and whether the problem is as serious as it appears to be. That matter needs to be addressed but children who have already been diagnosed with special needs require specialised teachers. It is essential, therefore, that we get an answer to that question.

I would also have expected to see progress being made in the coming year in catering for children with learning disabilities. I am thinking in particular about children who would be covered by the education for children with disabilities Bill that was supposed to be published in this session. That legislation will not be published until next year, however, and we do not know when it will become law. No money appears to have been set aside next year to provide resources for the Bill's provisions. If children are given rights under the terms of a Bill, the wherewithal should be provided to fulfil those rights and give them the support they need at school. That legislation has been promised should focus minds at the Department of Finance and the Department of Education and Science so that the necessary funding will be forthcoming.

The Disabilities Bill was withdrawn last year but when it was first mooted that people with disabilities should be given rights to education, health and social services, the Department of Finance objected to the proposal – which came from the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities – saying it would be too costly.

I suspect that the Department of Finance will put a spanner in the works again so we need to ensure that the Department of Education and Science insists that there is money to implement the provisions of the legislation. I tabled a number of Dáil questions on the area of education welfare, including my first oral question as education spokesperson, and I have had correspondence and phone calls. It seems clear that there will not be any education welfare officers in place by the end of the year despite financial provision being made.

I have had correspondence from someone working in the Children's Court who says that cases are being thrown out or put on hold because the 1926 Act no longer applies. It has been superseded by the Education Welfare Act. Therefore children who do not attend school regularly cannot be dealt with under the provisions of the old Act and are effectively in a vacuum. In a case which was reported recently the courts could do nothing about a child's need for education because education welfare officers had not been appointed. It is the responsibility of truancy officers in certain parts of the country, in other parts it is the Garda. These are children who are the most educationally disadvantaged because they are not attending school at all. There is a real urgency about this and I hope that the Minister will attend to it. So far the answers I have been getting to my questions are to the effect that this is now the responsibility of the education welfare board. That is not good enough. The children are left with nobody to protect them while the education welfare board is being set up. I know there have been difficulties with it but it should be an urgent requirement and funding should be provided for the education welfare officers to be appointed.

I want to address the issue of school meals. My colleague, Deputy Burton, spoke about this in her Budget speech. There has been a small sum of money, €2 million, allocated for the school meals programme. To extend it and provide for it properly five times that amount would be needed. I urge that this be addressed because it is a real way of meeting the needs of the most deprived children. A school meal can be something to look forward to, it can mean having the strength to sit through the school day. It is one of those programmes which, with our relative wealth, we should address. Other European countries seem able to provide these things.

There have been real cutbacks in education. Deputy Enright referred to cutbacks in the school retention programme and the access programmes to second level, one a €6 million cut and the other €5 million. The schools building programme has been frozen and there are other issues outlined in the House. The Minister keeps flying a kite about third level fees. I am worried that this issue is being used to deflect attention from the real cuts which are taking place in the education service. He keeps adding a lovely, colourful tail to the kite. Yesterday he talked about a loan scheme. He comes out every week with a way to bring in third level fees one way or the other. It makes people think that he is really concerned about disadvantage and will somehow bring money into the third level budget through the third level system. This is fundamentally dishonest. When the Minister talks about disadvantage what he is actually doing is not addressing the problem. The lovely kite up in the air which gets more colourful by the minute is distracting attention from the real issues that the Minster should be addressing if he is concerned about disadvantage in the education system.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta O'Sullivan as ucht a cuid ama a roinnt liom. Molaim an Teachta Enright agus Fine Gael as ucht an rún seo a chur os comhair na Dála agus seans a thabhairt dúinn an bunoideachas a phlé.

I want to focus on areas of special need and disadvantage. There are problems in all of our constituencies with the shortage of speech and language therapists. Hopefully 75 additional places will be provided at the start of the new academic year in September 2003 to train speech and language therapists. Unfortunately the dividend for this will not arise until the end of the 2007/8 academic year, over four years away. The only speech and language places available in Ireland are in Finnerty where there are 29 places, 27 of which are filled. I understand that 25 of the 27 are first-time students. There was a proposal to have speech and language therapy assistants put in place. This is very attractive in view of the serious shortfall which exists. I know of one instance where the Department of Education and Science set up a special speech and language therapy class and no speech and language therapist was available. I understand a small amount of time is now available to students but it is nonsense to have such a class set up.

Speech is one aspect of the problem but language is the other side of it. There are children who do not understand language. Unless they are given the training to bring their language skills up to a level where they can progress at a normal rate in school, the difficulty will continue. My contention has long been that the speech and lan guage therapy grade should have been put in place and the speech and language therapy assistants could work then to a senior speech and language therapist in order that children will not have to wait until 2008. Some of them will have gone out of the system before they get professional attention. The responsibility for places in speech and language therapy is with the Department of Education and Science. It is to its shame that so little has been achieved, particularly in recent years when there was a great deal of money to provide new places and training.

The other area I will deal with is that of dysfunctional children who cannot cope in the primary system. They are unable to accept ordinary discipline. They need to undergo educational psychological assessment. That situation is improving somewhat. During the course of the passage of the Education Act, I sought that there would be at least one education officer in each VEC area. It is important, and this is not in the legislation, that this person should have the statutory power to co-ordinate the various services and deal with the child's problem in a family context. There are many resources and people who deal with the problems of dysfunctional children but the buck does not stop anywhere in particular. If progress is to be made there must be an identifiable person with whom the responsibility resides at the end of the day so that the child is assessed and a programme put in place for him. The parents should be involved in the plan but it should be monitored and if progress is not made then responsibility would rest with a particular person. As it stands, where responsibility is shared between various agencies and there is no central person to pull all the elements together, only marginal progress is made in many cases.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share