Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jan 2012

Vol. 751 No. 4

School Guidance Counsellors

Deputy Brendan Smith

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann:

— confirms that schools are legally obliged to provide guidance and that the provision of ‘appropriate' guidance is a statutory requirement under the Education Act 1998;

— recognises that the budgetary decision to include guidance provision in the standard allocation is an effective increase in the pupil/teacher ratio at post-primary level;

— condemns the Government's decision that will result in 700 schools losing up to 1,000 qualified guidance counsellors around the country, which will further result in guidance counselling being provided from within the standard teacher allocation;

— acknowledges that guidance counsellors provide a critical service to students by encouraging students to go on to third level, selecting which courses to study and also in offering advice and support relating to a range of personal issues;

— notes the ESRI's report entitled ‘Improving Second-Level Education: Using Evidence for Policy Development' which states that the removal of guidance counselling in schools will impact most on young students from disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of going on to third level;

— agrees that guidance counsellors are the only persons in a school setting professionally qualified to provide guidance counselling to students;

— condemns the position that post-primary schools are now faced with, where they must either cut an essential service to students or drop another subject leading to reduced subject choice;

— acknowledges that at the end of February and in June this year a significant number of teachers will retire from our schools, many of whom will be qualified guidance counsellors; and

— calls on the Minister for Education and Skills, Ruairí Quinn T.D., to:

— explain the rationale behind his decision and the effect it will have, not only on the number of career guidance counsellors in post-primary schools, but also on subject choice in these schools;

— publish any impact analysis carried out within his Department relating to this decision and the effect it will have on the career guidance profession and on vulnerable students;

— clarify if the section relating to the provision of ‘appropriate' guidance in the Education Act 1998 still applies and what the Minister now deems to be ‘appropriate' guidance following Budget 2012;

— ensure that all second level students have access to career guidance and counselling services following Budget 2012 and that schools must continue to provide a certain level of guidance counselling;

— ensure that only those teachers professionally qualified as guidance counsellors will be allowed to provide guidance counselling to students and that no other member of school management or teaching staff will be allowed to provide guidance to students;

— clarify who will provide career guidance and counselling provision to students in the event that a school chooses not to replace a school guidance counsellor that retires in February or June this year;

— clarify if he envisages any guidance posts being advertised in the coming academic year and what the effect will be on specific postgraduate qualifications in guidance; and

— reconsider this decision that will result in the obliteration of the guidance counselling profession and have a severe social impact on young vulnerable students, particularly those with mental health problems or from disadvantaged backgrounds."

I propose to share time with Deputies Martin, Calleary and McConalogue.

Following the recent budget, career guidance and counselling provision at second-level will be managed by schools from within their standard teacher allocation. The Fianna Fáil Party believes this decision will lead not only to the end of the guidance counselling profession but its effect will be felt most by vulnerable and disadvantaged students.

This decision is an effective increase in the pupil-teacher ratio despite the Government giving the message at the budget that there was no increase. In the next school year, second-level schools will be faced with the choice to let go up to 1,000 guidance counsellors in 700 schools or let go other teachers, maybe in the science or language disciplines, leading to reduced subject choice. We may have bigger classes but likely casualties will be also foundation classes at leaving certificate level in subjects like maths and Irish. Again, the weakest students will suffer. The Government and the Minister for Education and Skills are, once again, hitting the wrong people with this decision.

Our motion refers specifically to the requirement to provide appropriate guidance under the Education Act of 1998, which was implemented by our party leader, Deputy Martin. We note the importance of career guidance and counselling right through second-level and we note that young vulnerable people need this support. We note the ESRI report, which states clearly, that the removal of guidance counselling in schools will impact most on young students from disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of going on to further and third-level education and we also note that guidance counsellors are those in a school-setting professionally qualified to provide guidance counselling to students. We ask the Minister to clarify, without further delay, what will constitute appropriate guidance as required in the Education Act 1998 following his decision.

A report of the inspectorate of the Department of Education and Skills some years ago stated:

"Guidance in schools refers to a range of learning experiences provided in a developmental sequence, that assist students to develop self-management skills which will lead to effective choices and decisions about their lives. It encompasses the three separate, but inter-linked, areas of personal and social development, educational guidance and career guidance".

A former chief inspector of the Department stated, as recently as 2009, that best practice involved the appointment of qualified guidance counsellors in the majority of schools and the whole school approach to the delivery of the guidance programme. That report recommended that all students have access to the services of a qualified guidance counsellor. Schools must now decide whether to deliver a guidance service or maintain subject provision and current class size. Guidance counsellors leaving the system before the next school year will not be replaced, with very serious consequences for the number of guidance counsellors in the school system within the next few years.

I hope the Minister can inform this House if his Department carried out an impact analysis on this decision. The Minister and other Members discussed the teaching of maths some time ago and the need to ensure we had people with appropriate qualifications in the classroom. Why are we going in the opposite direction in respect of career guidance and counselling, a system and method that is working very well?

Apart from the impact on the pupil-teacher ratio and on subject choice, we are concerned about the severe social impact of this decision on young, vulnerable students. There is widespread and supportive evidence on the importance of guidance and counselling. That evidence is contained in the National Development Plan 2000-2006, the Learning for Life: White Paper on Adult Education, the commission on the points system and the OECD report. The OECD report clearly outlined the benefits of career guidance in helping to reduce early school leaving and improving transitions from the education system to the labour market and overall a better use of educational resources. That is what we need when resources are scarce. The ESRI report is clear in its analysis of the benefits of career guidance and counselling. There is serious complexity involved in the work of the counsellor. Over the years that work and demand has grown and fortunately there has been an excellent ongoing professional development service with participation exceeding 90%. Guidance counsellors work at the coalface of education dealing with some very difficult and challenging social, personal and educational issues on a daily basis. We are all conscious of those serious challenges and the guidance counsellors' professional advice and support on a one-to-one basis is critical. Most of those issues could not be dealt with in a group setting. Many of these issues have greatly increased in the current economic climate. In many respects guidance counsellors are part of the school management and care team, liaising with staff and students, acting as advocates for students and being instrumental in drafting and implementing school policies around the welfare of students.

Our students need this help, that guidance and that support. Guidance counsellors constantly deal with referrals from the principal, deputy principal, year heads and class tutors, as well as having an open-door policy with students. They liaise with outside agencies and families; they help their students through their difficulties. Guidance counsellors are well-placed to identify issues as they arise and help ensure students receive necessary supports. Guidance counsellors have an enormous input and role in educational guidance, for example in the area of subject choice, college applications, personal references and individual advice on further education. Changes proposed by the Minister would see the loss of this support with the further implication for students making uninformed decisions affecting further study options and could well lead to increased numbers dropping out of courses and schools due to the lack of these necessary supports and advice at the critical time.

Research has shown that poor, insufficient, and absent guidance in schools is a significant cause of drop-out in further and higher education. We know the cost of drop-out to the individual, the family and the society. Career guidance also helps prevent early school leaving at second level. I have always recognised that guidance counsellors have worked tirelessly to create the professional service that is currently available within the Irish education system. They are a highly committed group of professionals who have the welfare of their students at heart. We are all conscious that hard choices have to be made but with cuts affecting other services the need for this professional and vital service within our schools is even more necessary.

It is simply not acceptable for the Minister to state that the appointment of 300 assistant principals will mitigate the career guidance and counselling loss. I welcome those appointments but year heads have a totally different role within school than guidance counsellors. Students need assistance in completing CAO forms, the HEAR, DARE and UCAS forms. Such work over the years has contributed to better access to further and third level education and we have made great progress in that regard. The access schemes at third level institutes will be greatly diminished without career guidance support. Last week in the House, the Minister stated that he had no doubt leaving certificate students will receive sufficient guidance, particularly in January, when they are completing their CAO forms. Guidance and counselling is not about the completion of forms and additional activity in January. The work of the counsellor is complex and essential and the present method of allocating teaching resources must be maintained.

Last April, we had the first debate on education in this Dáil when I tabled a Private Members' motion on behalf of Fianna Fáil, seeking the support of Dáil Éireann in prioritising and protecting funding for education. The Minister for Education and Skills, on behalf of the Government, generously agreed with the motion and it received the unanimous support of the House. This evening's motion calls on the Minister to ensure that a key and integral part of our education system is not dismantled.

If a service is not available in a school, households with a high disposable income will be able to buy in the service privately while the student from the less well-off home will, again, be the loser. It is not acceptable that our professional career guidance and counselling service should be dismantled and that the many vulnerable young people who need that assistance should be denied that support at a critical time in their education.

Deputy Micheál Martin

For most of last year, a steady stream of announcements and leaks came from Marlborough Street. An enormous amount of time was spent telling journalists how progressive reform was under way in a new era for Irish education. The problem through all of this is that it all added up to nothing more than a statement of intention rather than concrete action.

Budget 2012 was the moment when the warm words and self praise could no longer cover up the reality of a Government whose education policy is deeply regressive and almost designed to maximise the damage inflicted on the most vulnerable pupils. On the day spending for this year was revealed, the Minister, together with most of his colleagues in government and many of his backbenchers, put out statements praising the plans for education. His own statement led with the direct claim that, "Front-line services in schools are being protected". For schools and teachers in every part of the country this statement was an insult. It said that for the Government home school liaison, language support, smaller classes for the most disadvantaged communities and many other activities in place for over a decade are now no longer front-line. The same goes for the career guidance and counselling service in second level schools.

A budget, which Fine Gael and Labour claim will protect front-line education services, will shortly end all support for guidance and counselling in schools. In September, there will not be a single teacher in Irish second level schools paid by the State specifically to help young people cope with the incredible and rising pressures they face in school and in their future lives. If helping a teenager who is finding it difficult to cope and does not know what to do with their life is not a front-line service then nothing is.

The teachers who deliver guidance and counselling in our schools carry a heavy work-load and perform a vital role for our society. The Minister and the Government took a decision to single them out in this budget. A service built up over 40 years has been dismissed as a mere optional extra. It has been adopted without even basic steps being taken to examine its impact on schools and pupils. Not one single piece of advice is available to schools as to what they should do now. The cold hard message of the Government is to say to schools, "It is not up to us; you handle it".

This is a dishonest cut that was proposed specifically so that it might be slipped in without too much controversy. The Government thought that leaving the headline pupil teacher ratio in place would be enough to make people believe its claims. This fell apart immediately and the Government then resorted to the insulting claim that all it was doing, as the Taoiseach told the House during Leaders' Questions, was giving schools staffing flexibility and local autonomy. The Taoiseach said this decision was all about giving schools what they had been looking for. The Department sent a circular to all schools that contained the soothing words, "In this way schools will have discretion to balance guidance needs with the pressures to provide subject choice". No doubt, this evening we will hear more of the same from the Minister and he will attempt to claim there is no need for guidance and counselling.

Let us put aside all of the nonsense and look at the facts. This is a cut that was demanded by no one and was on no one's agenda. The Government's own documents, as well as our pre-budget proposals, showed how to achieve the budget figures without this cut. It first emerged as a possibility in the Minister's own review of his Department's spending, which was finalised on 9 September. The proposal, which was later put through a public relations filter, is to be found in its stark and brutal simplicity in page 15 of the Minister's document. In September, he explicitly raised what he terms, "the option to terminate the dedicated staffing allocation for guidance and counselling". There was nothing about providing it from other allocations, as is now being claimed. In fact, he explicitly talked about redeploying guidance teachers. Last September, he said this would raise difficulties and "could take at least two years to achieve". If it was going to raise difficulties over two years, its implementation in one brutal move this September will raise many more. The budget documentation allows for no transition period or flexibility. These 700 teaching posts will be removed in their entirety in September.

Ministers and desperate backbenchers have been repeatedly claiming that the service can be protected within the staffing quota. Hiding behind the complexity of second level staffing, they have claimed that principals will have discretion to continue to employ guidance counsellors. This does not stand up to even basic scrutiny. Every school in the country has already filled its staffing quota with teachers who are allocated to specific subjects. Many have slightly more teachers than the strict pupil teacher ratio allocation in order to provide required subjects. There is no space within the pupil teacher ratio allocation to maintain the guidance and counselling service. No doubt, the Government will claim this space will be created by retirements. What this ignores is that schools will have no option but to replace retiring teachers with subject specialists. If, for example, a science teacher is retiring the school must replace the teacher with another who can teach science. Most teachers teach subjects that are required for the curriculum. Schools must provide for the core subjects and must provide a minimum number of other subjects. The claim that they will have enough discretion and flexibility to absorb 700 posts in September is either cynical or ignorant. Whichever it is, the devastating impact is clear.

There is no doubt about the legal obligation of schools to provide for the set curriculum. What is less appreciated is the legal obligation to provide guidance. In preparing the Education Act as Minister for Education and Science, I decided to include a provision concerning guidance. I did this for a range of reasons, the most important of which was the guidance works. I looked at the evidence and could see that guidance teachers were performing a vital role for schools, pupils and the wider society. In particular, I could see that pupils from disadvantaged schools benefit most from the service, a fact confirmed by subsequent studies. When reducing the overall second level pupil teacher ratio I also implemented an increase in the number of guidance and counselling posts together with improvements in areas such as in-service training in this field. I chose to keep guidance and mainstream allocations separate because every scrap of evidence showed that guidance is not optional. It is core to the work of schools.

The fact that Ireland has now one of the world's highest school completion rates is, in part, due to the work of our guidance counsellors. It was the experience of many other countries that drop-out rates increased during prosperous times and it was a core objective of ours not to have that happen here. The expanded guidance and counselling service was charged with taking a lead role, and it did this. Equally, it is central to helping pupils in these more difficult times, working with them to negotiate the more complex training and higher education fields.

One of the most cynical and disingenuous things about the education cuts targeted at those most in need is that part of the saving has been earmarked to fund the new literacy and numeracy strategy. The comprehensive review of expenditure confirms this in a number of places. Programmes that have been proven repeatedly to deliver better educational outcomes are being cut to create space for a public relations initiative. It is more important to the Government to be able to claim credit for things than to acknowledge the work of others.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

A public relations initiative-----

Deputy Micheál Martin

Yes.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

That does not reflect well on Deputy Martin's predecessor.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I was in schools yesterday and this morning. They told me how well literacy and numeracy programmes have worked under existing schemes that the Minister is now savagely cutting. That is the point. The Minister is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

That is why we stayed static in the PISA results.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The Minister should make a more honest and decent analysis of that. One does not cut between five and eight teaches in a DEIS school and terminate the entire guidance counselling service and use part of the money for another initiative that will get PR headlines. If the Minister is to do what he ought to, he should concentrate on protecting the areas that are working and that have been seen to work, not according to my observations but according to independent analysis and evaluation.

When applied to many other areas, this cut is merely petty. When it affects education services that have been in place for years and have been relied upon by schools, teachers, parents, pupils and communities, it is much worse. There is still time for the cut to be reversed. The Minister has already admitted this was a budget put together by people who are not on top of their game. The Government has four years left and a majority that can survive even the current rate of backbench losses. It should do the decent thing and do what the Minister called the termination of counselling and guidance provision. If the Minister pushes ahead with his plan and takes the 700 posts from our schools, he will be doing a great and long-lasting disservice to our education system. This will not be forgotten. The Minister may talk of having to take tough decisions but people will remember that they were wrong, unfair and did immense and unavoidable damage to schools and hundreds of thousands of people. I have a simple plea for the Minister: he should do the right thing.

Deputy Dara Calleary

I wish to share time with Deputies Moynihan and McConalogue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Dara Calleary

I welcome the chance to discuss what is in effect the dismantling of modern guidance provision. I thank Deputy Brendan Smith for providing us with the opportunity to do so.

As I was preparing my remarks, I received correspondence from a guidance counsellor in a western school with 800 students. She gave a diary of an average week in the school and an idea of guidance counsellors' activities. Her work involves a 45-hour week, 22 hours of which are in direct contact with individuals or contact with a range of classes. Some 10% of her time is devoted to counselling, an extremely valuable task that involves using her skills and qualifications, which she continues to update. The time spent counselling depends on the severity of the case.

The school in question does not participate in DEIS and has no school chaplain or home-school liaison officer. The teacher has asked all the Deputies to whom she sent her e-mail where students will go next year in times of crisis when she is removed from her role. To whom will teachers refer students? What will happen to students who have no one to help them or do not have the resources to go to a private career guidance adviser to obtain advice on post-leaving certificate courses, IT or university courses, or when they end up unemployed, applying for the wrong course or dropping out because they are no longer provided for? All of these outcomes increase unemployment, drop-out levels and reduce the status of students within schools.

My correspondent's weekly diary is very interesting. I was relatively ignorant of the role of guidance counsellors until approximately two years ago when I had the honour of opening the guidance counsellors' conference in my role as Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs. It had nothing to do with education. It involved a group within the education system who focused on industry and business. On the night in question, the group had lecturers from Maynooth and lecturers teaching a range of courses. The event opened my eyes because I am of a generation for whom guidance counselling was Cinderella. It was carried out by very well-intentioned people who believed guidance involved giving one a leaflet for college and telling one that, because one was good at commerce, one should study business. Perhaps that is why I ended up in the House.

With the introduction of the Education Act 1998 by Deputy Martin, Cinderella went to the ball and we now have a complex and comprehensive service in place that looks after career guidance from day one. It is interesting that the guidance counsellor's weekly diary indicates she spends some of her week with first and second year students. Guidance takes place that early in the cycle. The counsellor devotes a considerable amount of her week to fifth-year or pre-leaving certificate students. I do not refer to those filling out CAO forms this week but to those who will be filling them next year. That is when we need to address the needs of students.

Even more important than career guidance is mental health counselling. Anyone who saw "The Frontline" last night or anyone in this job or any other will realise there is a mental health crisis. The counsellor with whom I was in correspondence and many others spend their time dealing with students who are in very serious circumstances, particularly at present. I refer to those who are being bullied and those in very difficult circumstances at home. If a student has difficult circumstances at home, to whom does he turn? He turns to the counsellor in school because he will have developed a relationship with her, based on having spent so much time in school. He will not go to his friends.

Irrespective of the Minister's intentions, which are probably genuine, the reality is that if schools must choose next September between providing core subjects or guidance, the latter will lose out. Where should people in crisis turn? They will go on the public waiting lists or, if they have the resources, to the private sector, thereby reinforcing disadvantage, loss and educational apartheid within schools.

The programme for Government contains ambitious and increasingly grandiose statements about education in light of the cuts affecting DEIS, rural schools, third level and guidance. Education, we are told in the programme, will be a priority for the Government, which will endeavour to protect and enhance the educational experience of children, young people and students. That sounds very hollow in light of the cuts we discussed last week and tonight and which we will discuss again over the coming weeks.

Education is at the heart of a more cohesive, equal and successful society and will be the engine of sustainable economic growth. We all agree with that. I believe this passionately and that education is the way to dismantle and break down social barriers but in order for it to be an engine of economic growth, students need help and to know where the economic growth is. They need to know whether their skills fit particular roles and that they are mentally strong enough to be part of the economic growth. Instead of assisting the engine of economic growth, we are pulling away an important part of the oil that keeps the engine running. The Minister will know what happens when one pulls the oil away from a system.

Barnardos is not necessarily an organisation associated with this side of the House. Its current chief executive is more associated with the Minister. I will finish with a quote from the organisation:

Barnardos believes that the measures to incorporate Guidance Counsellors within schools' staffing quota will severely affect children and young people. ... The implications for the proposed cuts to Guidance Counsellors are far reaching and will leave many young people at risk.

There is no political agenda here but the agenda of young people.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

I thank my colleague Deputy Brendan Smith for tabling this timely motion. This debate on career guidance and guidance counsellors is among the most important we are having. Over recent weeks, we have been contacted by people at the coalface in schools who are providing the best service possible. One of the teachers who contacted me over the past week expressed disgust over the cuts. In one school, in a large urban town, a leaving certificate student died by their own hand – I would rather not dramatise it – and it was the career guidance counsellor who took over in terms of talking the children and entire school through the situation. The teacher who contacted me said the strength and courage of the career guidance counsellor over the very difficult, challenging days, weeks and months were an inspiration. She complimented career guidance counsellors on their dedication and training in becoming qualified, and on the effective way they deal with problems. The teacher asked where the school in question would be had it not had the backup of a career guidance counsellor.

The Minister must consider this very carefully because the service has been built up, particularly over recent years, such that it results in great dividends for students from first year onwards. When students have emotional or family difficulties, career guidance staff are the staff they approach. They represent the trusted face of the school authorities.

These are very serious issues. The importance of career guidance counsellors' service to school communities could not be overstated. If we are serious about ensuring education is central, we must ensure the cut is reversed.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

With my colleagues, I would like to endorse the timely motion put forward by our education spokesperson, Deputy Brendan Smith, which deals with just one of the aspects of the education sector, which has suffered so much in the budget the Minister has just introduced. It is particularly important because, if we look at the education system in the context of a child's life cycle, the support a child gets at one stage of his or her development is critical to the success in the next phase of life. Hence, the importance of a child's earliest years in determining how that child will perform at primary school. Likewise, the importance of doing well and being resourced properly at primary level is critical in order to succeed and be equipped to enter second level and maximise a young person's chance of completing the second level cycle. Similarly, the quality of the services and resources available to students when going through second level will be a key determinant in how those young people progress to third level and whether they will be equipped to make that move and fulfil their potential.

What we have seen from the Government in its short time in office is a dangerous erosion of the services so critical to ensuring students fulfil their potential through our education system. More worryingly, the stirrings from the Government show an attitude of indifference to the importance of ancillary supports and to ensuring that those students who are more vulnerable and disadvantaged are served well by our education system and are given a similar chance to make the most of life, as are other students who have been more fortunate in economic background and familial support, for example.

Instead, the Government has at primary level targeted those schools with students in need of a helping hand in its quest to find savings in the education budget. The identifying of DEIS schools to carry the burden of education cuts is discriminatory. It is a real blow to the progress that has been made through improved resourcing of those schools and a real blow to those children going through their doors in regard to ensuring they are well equipped and get the start necessary to go on and do well at second level.

For a Minister who highlighted in bold talk on budget day that he was protecting pupil-teacher ratios, it came as a real shock for hundreds of schools with DEIS categorisation to find out they would be losing 425 teaching posts under the Minister's budget. The pupil-teacher ratios of those students most in need were forced to carry the load for the Government.

At second level, we see the same theme emerge from the Government as its cuts hit at the provision of guidance counselling to students, a measure that would again affect those students who most need the extra help. This is a cut that will hit hardest in those schools and at those students who need the extra assistance and ancillary services the most. Once more, the Minister sold this measure as if it was something one not need be worried about. Again, there was no upfront assessment, as with DEIS, of how this measure would impact on schools. To listen to the presentation of the measure on budget day, one would have been forgiven for thinking that schools were being done a favour. To quote:

At second-level level, guidance provision will be managed by schools from within their standard teacher allocation. In this way, the main teacher allocation can be maintained at 19:1 for schools generally, while schools will have discretion to balance what they allocate for guidance against the competing demands of providing subject choice.

However, when the budget dust settled, the effects of this measure became very clear. What it means in effect is an increase in the pupil-teacher ratio from 19.1 to 19.8.

This leaves many very serious questions which the Minister has failed to address in his comments since the budget. For example, how will we ensure that only those teachers qualified to provide guidance will continue to do so? The Minister is in effect making the necessity to provide counselling and guidance services to students something which is up to school principals to deal with. The necessity for guidance and counselling facilities was not enshrined in legislation by accident. It was put there because it is an essential service for those students who need it. What the Minister has done by removing the ex-quota allocation of hours and guidance resources is to treat it like another subject choice. We now have a situation where, instead of it being clear to principals what are their responsibilities in terms of providing guidance and counselling to students, they will now have to sit down at the start of the year and, at their discretion, deal with the problem of which the Government is absolving itself. The principals are left with the problem of how they ensure that guidance and counselling services can be provided to the students under their care.

This comes at a time when school principals have a much more difficult job than they have ever had before. If the Minister feels, as he said in selling this cut, that guidance and counselling is so important, why is he absolving himself, the Department and the State of the need to ensure the service is actually provided to students and instead foisting the responsibility onto school principals?

What is likely to happen is that much of the progress made in recent years, where postgraduate courses have been established in order to allow guidance teachers to fully qualify as professionals in their area and feed through into the education system, and where students have been able to get professional guidance and counselling in schools, will be rolled back in one fell swoop. As guidance teachers retire or as schools move to recruit new resources, in many cases teachers whose expertise this is not will be asked to provide those guidance services instead. What happens when teachers who are asked to take on this role provide advice which is perhaps not the optimal advice for any student? Who is responsible in that scenario? The measure introduced in this budget will be responsible for many students not getting the type of advice they require in order to make the most of their opportunities.

We have seen in the past the expenses incurred by the State as a result of failing to do its job properly at any one level. This has been particularly significant and obvious in the dropout levels at third level in recent years. In many third level courses, up to 40% of students have dropped out in the first year. The root of that problem goes back in many instances to the fact students were not advised and given the support necessary to help them make a choice that would lead them to take on something suitable to their capabilities and which they would want to pursue. Alongside the fact this will hurt students, therefore, this is also a short-sighted measure in terms of savings to the State. We will see many students making choices which are not optimal for them and wish they will not pursue as a result of not getting the support they needed at the time.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to revisit this cut and to revise the thrust and theme which emerged in the education line in this budget. In my view and the view of people on the ground in schools at secondary and primary level, this is hitting those who need the support most and who are more vulnerable. As is always the case, those who are starting off and who are more fortunate will have other avenues to find the supports which the State has been providing up to now. Unfortunately, it is those for whom we have the most responsibility, those who need a helping hand, who are being hurt most by this measure. I urge the Minister to reconsider the policy and reverse this cut.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn)

I move amendment No. 1:

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

"— acknowledges that:

— despite the severe economic crisis caused by the actions of previous Fianna Fáil-led Governments, and in the expectation that an additional 70,000 students will enter the education system over the next six years, the Government has ensured that the reduction in teacher numbers will be less than in other areas of the public sector over the coming years;

— guidance provision will be managed in future by schools from within their standard staffing allocation so that schools will have discretion to balance guidance needs with the pressures to provide subject choice;

— notes that this change is in line with the Programme for Government commitment to give greater freedom and autonomy to school principals and boards of management, including greater freedom to allocate resources and manage staff;

— recognises that all teachers, not just guidance counsellors, have a duty of care to their students and that school management and teachers have a long and proud tradition of working together to meet the needs of students, including any necessary supports for vulnerable or ‘at risk' students;

— acknowledges that, while changes are being made to the way in which guidance counsellors will be allocated in future, all post-primary schools will still be required to provide guidance support for their students in accordance with the Education Act 1998;

— notes that guidance is a whole school activity;

and welcomes:

— the Government's commitment in Budget 2012 for the filling of 300 assistant principal posts of responsibility in second-level schools and notes that this will ensure significant management supports, particularly for more

appointments to the key role of year heads;

— the very constructive and positive work being done by the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals with all post-primary schools to ensure they are aware of their continuing responsibility to provide

guidance counselling services; and

— the intention of the Department of Education and Skills to issue a circular in the coming weeks in order to provide further clarification for schools on the changes to guidance counselling provision announced in the recent Budget."

With the agreement of the House, I wish to share time with Deputies Patrick O'Donovan and Aodhán Ó Ríordáin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Agreed.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I welcome this debate and appreciate that I have an opportunity to clarify to the House the nature of this decision and how it may or will impact. At the outset it is important to recognise the overall financial and budgetary context in which Ireland is operating. We are relying on funding being provided through the EU-IMF programme of support for Ireland for the provision of our day to day public services, including the funding of our education system. For the information of Deputies opposite, there is nobody else in the world who will lend us money on terms we can afford. It is also worth reminding the House that this difficult situation has arisen from the catastrophic mistake by the last Fianna Fáil Government in inextricably linking Irish sovereign debt with the debts of bankers and speculators when it introduced the ill-fated bank guarantee in September 2008.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely essential that we close the funding gap between what we take in from taxation and what we spend on our day to day services. This year that gap between what we take in and what we wish to spend will amount to €18 billion, almost double the entire budget for the Department of Education and Skills. It is hoped last December's budget will close that gap by a further €3.8 billion, reducing our deficit to 8.6% of GDP by year end. However, the target we must reach is 3% and therefore the matter is not over this year.

We cannot be under any illusion about the serious situation in which we find ourselves. As I have stated on many occasions, this country has lost its economic sovereignty. Our finances must be put on a sustainable footing so that we can re-enter the financial markets in order to continue to fund our public services and restore our country's economic and social well-being. We must step back from the edge of national insolvency. Listening to the Deputies opposite, one would think this is not the world in which we live.

The education allocation for current expenditure in 2012, including the national training fund, will be €8.6 billion. This represents approximately 17% of all State current expenditure this year. Savings measures announced in my Department's budget will provide net savings of some €76 million in 2012, increasing to some €241 million in 2014. Achieving savings in my Department's budget has required making very difficult decisions, particularly at a time when the school population continues to increase. A key part of our overall budgetary strategy is a requirement to reduce the public sector payroll. Reductions in the public service pay bill and staffing numbers will continue to play a part in expenditure consolidation. One third of all public sector employees work in the education sector so it is simply not possible to completely exempt staffing levels in education from the Government's need - its obligation - to reduce expenditure.

However, unlike in other countries, our school-going population is rising rapidly. Places have to be provided for the extra 70,000 pupils arriving in our schools in the next six years and teachers must be appointed to teach them. As Minister for Education and Skills, I will ensure every child has a physical place in which to go to school. That is why, despite the need to reduce teacher numbers and the other spending reductions that have been made, the overall number of teachers employed in our schools is about 200 below the numbers for 2008. This represents a net overall reduction of about 0.3% in the overall number of teachers in spite of several changes to the pupil-teacher ratio at both primary and second level. This point is too easily forgotten by commentators when discussing the resources available for education. I am glad the counter-motion before the House notes this fact.

Although providing for increased enrolments is a key priority, making some adjustment to teacher numbers is unavoidable given the budgetary constraints. The net impact on overall teacher numbers in our schools has been minimised to the greatest extent possible. In the recent budget announcement for education I made clear that the net impact of the measures relating to second level schools for the school year commencing next September would, after taking account of demographics, amounts to approximately 450 posts.

In spite of these pressures on spending, the Government has shielded, to the greatest extent possible, front line services in schools. There has been no increase of the mainstream staffing schedule general average of 28:1 for the allocation of classroom teachers at primary level. The overall number of special needs assistants, SNAs, will be maintained at 10,575. The overall number of resource teachers will also be maintained at current levels.

I have also prioritised resources for the key reforms I have worked on since becoming Minister for Education and Skills. These include, among other points, an allocation of nearly €10 million in 2012 to commence the implementation of actions in the literacy and numeracy strategy, funding for junior cycle reform and the phased roll-out of high-speed broadband to every second level school over the next three years. I note that the current leader of the Fianna Fáil Party is clearly ill informed as to the drop in levels of literacy in recent years as registered in the PISA report.

I would prefer not to have to reduce teacher numbers at all. However, it is clear that we have shielded front line services in schools at a time when the Government is seeking to make significant reductions in public sector numbers in other areas.

If we are to have a constructive debate it is important there is a full understanding of the detail of the changes we are making to guidance provision and that we explain precisely what this means at school level. Until now, a specific resource was provided to all second level schools for guidance, in addition to the standard teacher allocation. Broadly speaking, this equated to an additional allocation of about one teacher for every 500 students. As things stand, and before any changes are made, 42% of second level schools, approximately 730, do not have a full-time guidance counsellor.

I will reiterate the precise detail of the budget measure and explain how it will operate. Guidance posts at post-primary level will no longer be allocated to any post-primary school on an ex-quota basis, namely, on top of the quota allocation the school would normally receive based on its pupil-teacher ratio. That means there will be no specific and separate allocation for guidance provision over and above the number of teachers a school is entitled to under the general teacher allocation of 19:1. In future guidance provision will be managed by school management from within the staffing schedule allocation. In this way principals will have discretion to balance guidance needs with the pressures to provide subject choice.

By bringing about the budget reduction in the number of second level teachers in this way, as I had to do, we can maintain the main staffing allocation at 19:1 for schools generally and allow schools discretion in balancing what they allocate for guidance against all other competing demands. This is very different from the approach taken by the previous Fianna Fáil Government in the October 2008 budget which made a one point increase in the staffing schedule for all second level schools. That approach reduced the teaching allocation to all schools, including DEIS post-primary schools. It also failed to give schools any discretion to allocate their resources as they saw fit.

While the removal of the separate allocation for guidance reduces the overall number of posts available to most schools, all 195 DEIS second level schools will be sheltered. This is because I am introducing a new and more favourable staffing schedule of 18.25:1 for DEIS schools. This is a 0.75 point improvement compared to the existing pupil-teacher ratio 19:1 that applies in non fee-paying second level schools. This means that the DEIS schools will be better positioned to manage the changes in guidance provision within their increased standard staffing allocation.

The budget measures, including those relating to guidance, come into effect from September 2012. Schools will be notified in the normal manner on these changes. My Department will issue a circular shortly that will outline the staffing arrangements in schools for the 2012-13 school year. The circular will also make clear that while the change provides schools with greater autonomy over the use of resources, they cannot ignore their statutory obligations under the Education Act.

Section 9 of that Act sets out a wide range of functions for schools of which subsection (c), relating to guidance, is but one. This has been referred to in much of the media comment on this issue. I have not changed nor do I have any plans to change the Act. Schools will continue to provide for guidance as they have always done.

In the run-up to the budget, I received many representations from parents, schools and teacher unions warning me about what needed to be protected from the changes that they recognised had to be made. The overwhelming majority of representations at second level focussed on the need to protect subject choice. Many commentators have said that removing teachers at second level does not necessarily mean larger classes but may mean a reduction in subject choice, in particular in smaller secondary schools. I listened carefully to those concerns and reflected upon them.

When the previous Fianna Fáil-led Government increased the pupil-teacher ratio at second level in 2008, it made reductions in subject choice inevitable. By bringing guidance within the quota, we have avoided an unnecessary level of compulsion and allowed schools the freedom and autonomy to decide how best to use their resources. Some of the extreme comments made about this measure are based on a false assumption about how schools, and school principals in particular, will operate the change.

Our schools are caring institutions. I am confident they continue to support vulnerable pupils in their care. All teachers have a duty of care to their students, not just guidance counsellors. By moving from stand-alone allocations into more general allocations of teachers, Ireland is following the practice many other countries use to provide staffing resources to their schools. Some countries even provide funding envelopes, leaving it to schools to decide how many teachers they will employ. While I am not a professional educationalist, I have done much research over the past several years. Two factors always stand out in the provision of a good education system - the autonomy, flexibility and the ability of a school's principal and the quality of teaching. This is what shines through in countries such as Finland and elsewhere.

Those who have claimed that this change spells the end of career guidance may think that they are point-scoring against me. They are not; 42% of second level schools do not have a full-time guidance counsellor. Those on the Opposition benches are being highly critical of schools, making a completely false and erroneous assumption that principals will use this increased autonomy over resources in a reckless manner and abandon guidance provision altogether. They know that is not true.

On the contrary, the changes that have been announced give schools greater autonomy in how they allocate staff resources to best meet the needs of their students, including how they provide for guidance and counselling. It is a change to how resources are allocated to schools not a policy decision to terminate guidance provision as some choose to present it.

The recent budget provided for the filling of 300 assistant principal posts in second level schools over the level originally planned. This will ensure schools have sufficient management positions to ensure appropriate supports are available for all students including the key role of year heads. Teachers with year head responsibilities play an important supportive role for the pupils in their year groups.

Following the Budget Statement, I have met with representatives from the Institute of Guidance Counsellors who were understandably concerned about the change. I assured them that while schools are provided with greater autonomy over the use of resources, the Department would clarify that schools must continue to fulfil their statutory obligations under the Education Act in the provision of guidance. This will be done through the annual circular on teacher allocations issued by the Department. I do not agree with the suggestion that principals and boards of management will abandon or significantly reduce guidance provision. Schools can be trusted to exercise any autonomy granted to them. It is better decisions on teacher allocation are increasingly taken at school level rather than by the Department through directed and restrictive allocation schemes.

Rather than have any pre-formed view of how principals would go about operating the revised allocation arrangements, I urged the representatives from the Institute of Guidance Counsellors to talk directly with the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals, NAPD. I understand discussions recently took place and proved most useful. It is important such close links are maintained to ensure the changes in guidance provision can be implemented at school level as smoothly as possible. I am confident school management and teachers will continue to work together to meet the needs of the students in their care.

As stated in the Government's amendment to the motion, the Government is trying, as best as possible, to protect front-line services in the education sector at a time of rapidly rising enrolments in our schools. It is also trying to advance other reforms including giving increased control to schools over how they use resources in line with best international practice. Schools will, of course, continue to make provision for guidance and counselling. Decisions on how this will be done will be taken by principals in the best interests of students and the best use of resources available.

While I regret any changes to teacher numbers are required, I fully acknowledge schools will face increased pressure to maintain subjects and subject options. Despite this I have given them more discretion over how they can manage resources in these difficult times. I reject some of the sensationalist claims made on this matter. Some contributions in the national media appear to have presumed that in some instances principals will simply abandon provision for guidance. They would be in breach of their statutory duties if they so did. I have trust and confidence in our second level principals and the boards of management of schools. They will balance the needs of the pupils in terms of guidance with their curricular and other needs in their utilisation of the resources available to them.

I urge guidance counsellors and other teachers to work collaboratively through their school's guidance plan to ensure the educational, pastoral and care needs of pupils are met. I urge this House to have similar trust in our second level school leaders and to support the Government's amendment to this Private Members' motion.

Deputy Patrick O’Donovan

The debate on this Private Members' motion has been constructive so far with Members giving responsible contributions. I agree with what has been said on the role played by guidance counsellors in schools. Apart from the career element to guidance counselling, the pastoral element is important too. This was also a concern raised by many who attended my constituency office on this matter.

Despite the debate on this issue in the media over the past several weeks, I was surprised to learn from the Minister that 42% of schools do not have a permanent guidance counsellor. Informing myself from media reports, I assumed every school had access to a permanent career guidance counsellor. I was wrong. Much of the speculation and reporting in the media is equally wrong. I understand there is a statutory obligation on principals under the Education Acts and the previous Minister must be complimented on ensuring that provision was inserted. However, leeways needs to be provided. The Department should examine how the change is being implemented, especially in the first 12 months, to allay the fears of parents and guidance counsellors that this review will be sidelined. I am sure the same concern is being raised with every Member. Will guidance counselling, the responsibility to provide pastoral care and the provision of one-to-one time with students evaporate to make room for something else? The Department should monitor this change through its inspectorate to ensure vigilance is maintained during the first year and thereafter and the Minister should be kept up to date about what is happening in this regard.

Parents are right to be concerned. Change is always difficult in the education sector, as we have witnessed over the past two weeks. People will use the opportunity to make political hay but that is the nature of politics. Many of the changes identified in the budget, some of which are being re-examined, call into question how the Government will make future savings. Education cutbacks will have to be considered on a broader scale. Parents, teachers, managers and departmental officials, who are the stakeholders, will have to sit around a table with the Minister in the near future. This is year one of four and we have witnessed the difficulties that resulted. We can pretend that next year will be easier but the reality is it will be worse.

I would much prefer it if everything was thrown on the table and now is the time to begin work on next year's budget. The Minister avoided an increase in the pupil-teacher ratio, by and large, but rural schools have been affected and I am sure that issue will be raised as well. Rural schools have an issue and guidance counsellors have an issue but it is a long way to the next budget. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend no savings can be made in the education sector next year, given 80% of the budget is protected through the Croke Park agreement, or we can be up-front and honest with stakeholders and say we are open to all suggestions to make savings. Many constructive proposals have been made regarding the pooling of resources in smaller schools, sharing principal posts, reviewing the primary school curriculum and the volume of material covered and the review of the junior certificate and so on. There is a willingness among the teaching profession, parents and managers to engage with the Minister for January 2013. Now is the time to do that because we should not cod ourselves. We think it is difficult when all the low hanging fruit has been picked but it will get worse next year. Now is the time to engage with people in a constructive and realistic fashion at the end of the day with one person in mind always, the child. There is a temptation to concentrate on jobs, posts, transfers and school closures and so on but the focus on a teacher's mind when he or she qualifies from day one, which is instilled into him or her, is that the most important person in the education system is the child, not the parent, teacher or manager.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank the Minister for his contribution. In keeping with the tone of the previous speaker's contribution, it would be easy to list cuts implemented under previous Administrations but that would not be fair to the people affected by this change. A few weeks ago, the Minister addressed students in the Gallery and it was one of the most inspirational things I have seen in my short time in the House. Many developments in education are incredibly exciting such as reform of the junior and leaving certificates, tackling the dreaded points system, addressing vested interests in the context of school patronage and admissions policies and tackling the issue of literacy and numeracy and the fact that Ireland is slipping down the league table, as the Minister correctly stated. In a short time in the Department, he has, therefore, tackled a significant number of issues that are fundamental to how our education system is structured.

It is impossible to make a cutback in the education system without affecting the quality of provision, which no Member would deny, and nor would they deny that when a €3.8 billion budgetary correction is made, education cannot be ring-fenced. I wish that could be the case but it is not possible.

I spent time yesterday in four of my local schools and I spoke to the members of a particularly impressive student council in Manor House school, who referred to junior and leaving certificate reform, their hopes and dreams and what lies ahead of them. They referred to how important guidance counselling provision is to them in their school. It is not easy to be a young person in modern day Ireland facing into the leaving certificate and university life in the current circumstances. It is not their fault if they happen to be aged 16 or 17 attending secondary school in the middle of a recession and budgetary corrections. A number of the guidance counsellors I met spoke about the impact of the recession on their students and the fact that they hear discussions about what is happening in their kitchens and bedrooms at home. They are aware of financial pressures and their parents have lost jobs. They hear about people in their classes doing stupid things and getting involved in behaviour that they should not.

A guiding hand is important. If we take the sense of vocation out of schools, then we will lose pretty much everything. The position of guidance counsellor is important but it would have been easier to increase the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools, as happened previously, which would have result in the guidance counsellor having fewer things to guide the students on because they would have had fewer subjects to study. That is one of the choices, unfortunately, the Minister and the Government faced.

This is a great opportunity for the Government and the Parliament, given the Minister has been so open about the challenges in the education system. It would be easy to say we have the best system in the world but the PISA results say otherwise. It would also be easy to say we are the land of saints and scholars but some of our results do not stack up. Spending on education is an open book. For example, it does not make sense to spend €178 million on rural school transport but I have an urban bias and the Minister does not agree with me. Many of us might say it is a great deal of money. However, in the area of guidance, €9 million is spent on school chaplains. It is difficult to unpick this allocation because it is provided for in the deeds of trust of many community schools. We have to unpick aspects of the education budget that do not stand up to scrutiny. As Deputy O'Donovan correctly said, we are talking about students who are our future and who are going through a difficult time. They depend on us, their schools and on teachers who, like all public servants, have been incredibly vilified over the past number of years. They had 14% of their pay taken from them by the previous Administration and they understand why their pay packets are smaller and their days longer.

However, the Minister and I know, and the Government understands, that we have to focus fully on children's capacity to achieve their educational potential and education is a liberator. If one has nothing else, if one's family falls apart or if one is from a dysfunctional community and there are elements in the area that are not working, the only solution that will always work is education and the school in which one has the chance to thrive.

I support the Government amendment to the motion. I accept the Minister's bona fides in this area. I agree with the previous speaker, Deputy O'Donovan, that we must look at and justify some of the matters on which we are spending money in order to ensure, hopefully, that in the future measures such as this can potentially be overturned or lessened. I am not sure that anybody in this House would justify spending €9 million on chaplains.

I commend the Minister on what he is doing to education. This is probably the most exciting time in education in a generation when everything is up for grabs, everything is being challenged, everything is being refocused upon, we are getting down to what really matters - literacy, numeracy and making a junior certificate and leaving certificate that work - and we are challenging the vested interests in terms of the patronage and looking at admission policies so that no child is turned away from any door of any schools for reasons which are not in-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must ask the Deputy to conclude his remarks.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank Deputy Quinn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call on Deputy Crowe. The Deputy has ten minutes and I understand Deputy Adams has five.

Deputy Seán Crowe

That is correct.

The Minister's decision in December's budget to subsume the compulsory allocation for guidance and counselling into the general allocation of hours per school has undermined it as a career, will increase the vulnerability of students in need of support and will result in the loss of possibly hundreds of guidance and counselling posts. The Minister has left the Chamber. It amounts to another attack on some of our most vulnerable young people and shows a Government, under the banner of reform, that seems hell-bent on gutting some of our core educational services.

I listened to the Minister's speech tonight. He spoke in terms of freedom and choice, but where is the freedom and where is the choice? He stated a circular is on the way - I am sure there will be a hooray in schools about that. What he is really saying is that the budget cuts being implemented - the Government had choices and could put forward an alternative budget - will be the fault not of the Minister but of the school principal. He spoke of point scoring. Maybe this is point scoring, but it is wrong. In my opinion, the change of policy will cause significant damage to the education system that is already reeling from cuts to DEIS schools, the reduction in capitation grants, the suspension of summer works schemes, increases to the pupil-teacher ratios, hikes in contribution fees for students, cuts to CE schemes, increases in the cost of school transport and the reduction in the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance.

The change to school guidance counsellors will cause considerable anger. There is disbelief in schools about what the Minister is trying to do in this regard. Advocacy groups such as Barnardos have clearly stated that forcing schools to choose between retaining a guidance counsellor or losing a core subject will have a significant impact on vulnerable children.

A number of teachers and educationalists to whom I have spoken have made the point that there does not seem to be any real understanding of the vital role of guidance counsellors within a school. Earlier, Members spoke about the role counsellors play in helping students arrive at important career choices. Perhaps even more important, they provide support, particularly in times of crisis. That is what everyone is concerned about in these changes.

Guidance counsellors are often the first point of contact for students when they experience difficulties at home. That is accepted by all sides in this House. They are one of the few free supports available to young people whose families cannot afford private counselling services. School principals should not have to choose between retaining a school counsellor and dropping a core subject, but that is what the Minister is saying tonight. This is freedom of choice. Is this autonomy? Nonsense.

Newly qualified teachers will find it even more difficult to secure a full-time teaching post and this will force more people onto the dole or to emigrate in order to find employment. Consideration must also be given to the fact that guidance counsellors will be expected to return to the classroom and teach a subject that many may not have taught for years. Has that been put into the equation by the Minister? The loss of guidance counsellors will probably result in the loss of IQ testing of incoming first years, psychometric testing of students, and aptitude and interest inventory testing.

Guidance counsellors fulfil an important sign-posting role in directing young people in times of crisis to the appropriate social service provider or health care professional. We all know that through our work with schools. We know we are on the verge of a deepening mental health crisis in the student community and the figures all stack up in that regard. Suicide, self-harm, family separation, violence, neglect and severe learning and behavioural difficulties are becoming more frequent in schools across this State. That is not me scoring points. That is teachers themselves coming forward about this. These cuts will mean that many students will be deprived of the only face-to-face listening service available to them, the only positive connection many will have with an adult - the Minister spoke last week about much of what happens to kids - and the only space to which they can go when they have nowhere else to turn. Most students between 16 and 18 will be left in limbo if they or their parents are unable to provide such supports.

The loss of guidance counsellors will greatly increase the strain on teachers working within the system and in the worst case scenario, could place lives at risk. In saying that, I am conscious of the burden being placed on teachers. The education system relies on the goodwill of teachers and those working within that system. That goodwill is been undermined and gutted. The Minister will lose that goodwill and all the extra tasks that those teachers do. At some stage, teachers will say that they are tired and have done enough. That is what the Minister is doing to this system.

I welcome the change on the moratorium on assistant principals and special duty posts in schools. There have been considerable difficulties in this regard and I suppose the fact that there are some changes there is to be welcomed.

I am concerned that these cuts will undermine the commitments enshrined in the Education Act 1998. I heard what the Minister stated in that regard.

This choice being put on schools is impossible. As I stated at the start, there were choices available in the budget. There could have been alternatives. The Minister is working within a budget envelope, but he is part of the Cabinet that decided that it would go down this track. There are many in society who have done extremely well in the good years and are still doing well, and the big question is: why should vulnerable children have to suffer when there is wealth in Irish society that could be tapped into? That is where the Minister needs to focus his ideas for the future, not on these vulnerable children.

Last week, on the back of a Sinn Féin Private Members' debate opposing cuts to DEIS funds, the Minister admitted to making mistakes and getting it wrong. That is fair enough. Similarly, he must now look again at the issue of guidance counsellors and the impact this will have on schools right across the State.

Deputy Gerry Adams

Táimid buíoch do Fhianna Fáil as ucht an rúin seo a chuir romhainn.

The Government's policies are not working. That is the truth of it. Worse, the Government is adding to the mess that it inherited. The evidence is everywhere. It is in mass emigration, mounting job losses, a health service on the rack and one Government decision after another imposing cuts in public services.

In every society, as those of us who live in the real world will be aware, there are citizens who need a leg up. A fairer society has an obligation to give this support. A good Government, a visionary thoughtful Government, will supply this, protect it and build on it, while a unfair short-sighted Government will do the opposite. The decision to cut resources to DEIS schools was an example of this. Last week the Minister was forced to admit that this was a mistake. However, the truth is this was a conscious decision taken by him, a Labour Minister, to cut services to vulnerable young people and it was completely in keeping with the Government's austerity programme.

The Government's austerity programme is aimed at forcing those who can least afford it to carry the greatest burden. This is also the reason the Government targeted disabled young people and DEIS schools and it is why services to our elderly are being cut. It explains why up to 1,000 guidance counsellor posts are to go. If teachers and parents had not caused a row the Government would not have admitted its mistake nor would it have attempted to reverse the decisions. The Government was forced to retreat on some of these bad decisions and the same focus is required in respect of guidance counsellors.

Some of the Deputies opposite are teachers and as such they know better than I that guidance counsellors help young people with subject and career choices and applications for third level programmes. Cabhraíonn siad fosta le scoláirí dul i dtreo postanna a n-oireann dóibh go speisialta, go háirithe ag an uair mhilteannach seo. Without the help of guidance counsellors students might pick the wrong courses. Students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds often apply to college through the higher education access route, while the disability access route is for students with learning or physical disabilities or mental health problems. Students applying through these schemes can avail of reduced points and assistance in college but they have to complete complex application forms. Counsellors also help students with ADD, ADHD, OCD and autism. These are crucial elements of the education system. They help students identify careers, which is particularly important during this recession. They are also the first port of call for young people under threat or who are experiencing difficulties with their mental well-being.

Today a guidance counsellor from County Louth outlined for me some of the issues she has dealt with in recent times. Incidents included self-harm, rape, family breakdown, bullying, eating disorders, child neglect, alcoholism in families, drug abuse and mental health issues. At a time when self-harm and suicide are increasing, who will help these students if guidance counsellors are not available?

I am also concerned these cuts will result in the privatisation of guidance counselling. The cuts will not affect those who can afford private counselling when their children are facing difficulties. There will always be private counsellors and they also do good work. However, those who cannot afford their services will not get help on any of the aforementioned issues. This means that students from low and middle income homes will be at an even greater disadvantage. The notion of two Irelands is becoming apparent. The Labour Party used to have a slogan, "one Ireland", even if its Ireland stopped at the Border. We are not seeing the emergence of a sense of one Ireland. We are seeing two Irelands, namely, those at the bottom and the rest of us.

I appeal to the House to support this motion in order to ensure our young people have the support they need to reach their educational potential. It is time for the Minister to accept he has made another mistake and correct it. Impím ar Theachtaí eile, go háirithe ar Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre, tacaíocht a thabhairt do dhaoine óga agus vótáil ar son an rúin. Ná deanaigí an gníomh seo.

During my contribution on DEIS schools, I recalled the seanfhocal, mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí. We should not set aside the wisdom of our ancestors to follow a course that will heap further disadvantage on our society.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion on behalf of the 700 schools which will lose up to 1,000 qualified guidance counsellors. Small schools also appear to be coming under threat.

There is much talk in this House about the importance of education but we need more than talk. We need to support and develop those aspects of the education system that are working and focus on the fact that education is a way out of poverty. I am a product of free education and in my previous job I worked in a small school with 107 pupils. My experience showed me that close relationships between teachers, students and parents work. I hope the Minister supports these schools because we need to focus not only on best practice but also show compassion and support for all our pupils.

Guidance counsellors are a valuable part of our education system and they provide useful assistance to pupils, particularly those who are at risk or in need. They have saved many children by working closely with care services in the HSE and other statutory agencies. The Minister wants to dismantle this service.

These people did not wreck our economy but they are paying the price. This is unfair and unjust and, as the Independent Deputies told the troika, it does not make economic sense. The cost will be higher in ten years time if we allow this to happen. We need to protect education as part of the strategy to get out of this economic mess. Despite mass unemployment and emigration, those who are educated have the best chance of escaping poverty. That is the real world. Disadvantaged schools are constantly trying to give their students a leg up so they have a chance of getting on in life and breaking through the barriers. Many of the pupils in disadvantaged schools are extremely bright and talented. They are the future of this country. I have worked with them and I believe in them. We should not hinder their education.

I call on the Government to support our teachers, guidance counsellors and small schools. They have made a huge contribution to this country. I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision to wipe out guidance counsellors and damage our schools and children's education.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I commend Deputy Smith and his colleagues on moving this motion. It is becoming increasingly evident that the Government is hitting the wrong people. We had another debate on education last week. Again the wrong people were being hit. The cut in career guidance counsellors will damage the roots of our educational system.

The 1998 Act provided students with choices and access to guidance counsellors. I am aware, having children who attended secondary school, that the guidance counsellor was the person to ask to meet a family. He or she is sufficiently removed from the classroom to observe student behaviour in a holistic way and can reach wise decisions in conjunction with other teachers and principals.

Will students be forced to choose between subjects and guidance counsellors? Private guidance counsellors will be available to those who can pay. The same applies in respect of grinds. The Minister admitted last week that he was out of touch. He could be guided back to touch by the qualified teachers who sit on his back benches and go after the poor or lazy teachers who mean that students are forced to take grinds which cost a fortune. He is going after the wrong people. What is going to happen to the students who suffer from disabilities? They will be completely cast aside.

There are a number of excellent schools in my constituency. St. Oliver's in Clonmel is not a DEIS school but it takes a significant number of children from deprived backgrounds. It is doing a tremendous job. We focused on DEIS schools in the cities and forgot about schools in rural towns.

This Government is not being fair. It cannot blame the troika, which is here to help us and sort us out, although I believe it is bleeding us dry. These decisions are being made by the Minister. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources lobbied on the issue on behalf of teachers and boards of management in his own constituency. They voted for this at Cabinet. Where is the compassion? Is it Labour's way or Frankfurt's way? Shame on that party for hitting the most needy. As Deputy Adams stated, mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 January 2012.