Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1974

Vol. 78 No. 11

Adjournment Debate: Dublin Educational Facilities.

Mr. Horgan

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I do not propose to use the plight of these students as a stick with which to chastise the present Minister for Education. The problem to which I refer even though it has surfaced in a particularly acute form this year, is one which to a large extent the Minister has inherited. Nevertheless it is a problem to which I should like to draw the attention of the House and particularly that of the Minister, so that he may be able to inform us what steps he proposes to take to remedy it. I believe it is a very serious problem and one which deserves all our concern.

This problem has been raised in a particularly dramatic way by the publication last week of the annual report of the school attendance department for the County Borough of Dublin for the year ended 30th June, 1973. In other words, this report is for a period which ended a year ago. Nevertheless the figures, opinions and facts it contains are of enormous significance. Basically, of course, school attendance departments deal only with school attendance, but even on the level of school attendance there is a problem which has to be faced. On the figures given in this report on average on any day in Dublin the better part of 10,000 children are absent from primary schools. There are no indications in the report, unfortunately, as to the numbers of children in the 14-15 age group who are absent from school but I suspect— and I am quite sure that research would bear this out that the proportion of absentee children increases dramatically as you go up the age range and that the older the age of the child the more likely he is to be absent. I would suspect that, whereas the overall average for truancy is in the 10 per cent range, the average truancy of the 13- to 15-year-olds who are being affected by the raising of the school leaving age is considerably higher than that.

Incidentally, there is another factor to which the report draws attention, and that is that there is a total absence even of such skeleton services as are provided by the school attendance department in vitally important new housing areas such as Tallaght, Clondalkin and Ballymun. But that is only by the way.

The first thing I should like to refer to is that section of the report which deals strictly with the raising of the school leaving age and with the consequences of this for the children involved. In this report by Mr. Doolan there are several references to this group of children who would normally have left school at 14 and who have now been confined, as it were, in the educational system for a further year without any real provision being made for them. I can remember that at the time when the raising of the school leaving age was first announced I had letters and one in particular from a primary school teacher drawing my attention to this fact and arguing very strongly that this would create more problems than anybody was aware of because no real work had yet been done to provide for these people. In the relevant section of the report it states:

The school leaving age was raised to 15 years on the 1st July, 1972. This was done, presumably, in the belief that it would automatically lead to an elevation of the cultural level of our society. It did not cause a ripple in the educational pond of middle-class Dublin parents —most of whose children were going on to some form of post-primary education, irrespective of the change in the law, and a sizeable proportion to University. But it clearly caused a stir in certain areas in Dublin city—areas clearly defined, and well-known to all concerned with the disadvantaged child and which have tremendous socio-disadvantages. The School Attendance Officer was expected to be a party to a confidence trick in informing the parents of these children (in some cases both children and parents functionally illiterate), that another year of school was going to improve them and that a further year's education would increase their job prospects. Children from all types of homes are compelled to enrol and be retained in the present system and so arrangements should have been made for their reception and instruction. Those arrangements—curriculumwise—were not made with the result that large numbers of Dublin school children are being held in custody for a further period of non-education. Even worse, large numbers of Dublin school children remain on in their National Schools to repeat the 6th standard and even dare it be said—do a third year in 6th to be eventually rescued by the magic of their 15th birthday.

These are the children recognised in the School Attendance Department as clearly as if they were dyed blue...

I recommend a reading of this report to the Members of the House. It is a shattering document. Just how shattering it is can be seen from the fact that in the areas of the city which Mr. Doolan, the author of this report, is writing about, there are many schools, some of them the most prestigious schools in this city. The children Mr. Doolan is writing about are living literally on the doorsteps of these schools. They are not allowed in through the doors of these schools because they have not got the money to pay the fees which, in many cases, are still being charged, because their whole history of disadvantage has left them unable, even if they were capable of paying the fees, of passing the entrance examinations which these schools set. These are schools which are in receipt of tens of thousands of pounds of public money every year. It seems to me to be the most glaring anomaly that we have some of the best schools in the country situated in some of the areas of our capital city which witness the greatest forms of educational deprivation. Again, to quote Mr. Doolan, the report says:

... children who are frequently taught in larger classes and who come from homes where even the most important factor for developing intelligence—the use of fairly accurate English—is uncommon. They come from homes where there are large numbers of children competing for limited emotional and material fulfilment. To expect these children to attend school and to listen to an individual from an alien social class, with an alien social culture and to expect some competence in educational tasks, is asking too much from this child. To expect a child from this background to continue for one further year, even to the extent of "doing Irish", when at 14 years of age the only difference between his knowledge of Irish and English is the word "agus", is positively dishonest.

Mr. Doolan goes on to make a point which I have already made. It states:

Reference is not being made here to the children of the upper and middle class of Dublin city whose children are well catered for in the well known Secondary schools which abound in Dublin city. Ironically, although a number of these schools are situated in the very deprived area of which I speak, their doors are barred to the disadvantaged children of their catchment areas. These schools are not for the children of the "ghettos". They are the preserve of the middle income group of Dublin city while the boarding schools remain the preserve of the residents of the smoked salmon and scampi belt of Dublin's suburbia.

This situation, although uncovered by the report, has existed for quite some time. The disadvantage which these 14- and 15-year-olds suffer has in some cases been institutionalised even in the schools they attend. Just as there are secondary schools in these areas of our city that discriminate against these 14- and 15-year-olds by not allowing them through the doors, so too there are primary schools, either fee-paying or private, in these parts of the city where children are already segrated even before they get to anything like the school-leaving age.

What are we going to do about this? A number of things have to be done. The report itself makes a number of recommendations and I would be very glad of the Minister's comments on them. They refer, in particular, to the need for educational priority areas but there is one very concrete proposal the school attendance report makes which, I think, the House should hear. It says:

The Department of Education should study the real educational needs of the children. Early evidence should be obtained on each child to discover the levels he has reached with regard to perceptual development, language development, ability to attend and motivation for learning. Demolish at least two existing schools in the area as a matter of urgency. Build one new school to cater for not more than 600 pupils. This school will have music rooms, theatre, gymasium, swimming pool, kitchens, dining-rooms and class rooms. Employ specialists in every field—educational psychologists, speech therapists, (there is sufficient evidence to support the view that inadequacy of linguistic range and control is an important factor in under achievement of the deprived child), drama teacher, domestic economy instructresses, physical education teachers, etc. Children from the age of 6 years to 15 years should be united under one roof. New therapeutic curricula should be prepared by front line teachers. Ideally children should not be formed into classes as such, but in age groups, Children should be given options (not between mathematics and needlework, but for example, between cooking and needlework) and where a child is unable to make up its own mind or makes an obviously bad choice, it should be advised to that effect and shown that it may change.

A strong parent's committee should be involved with the running of the school and with its physical protection. It is imperative that the parents of the most deprived children should be involved. This will be a difficult task in itself but should be a priority.

I would endorse many of these recommendations. They show very constructive thinking on the part of the author of this report to meet the savage problems which he has encountered. I would add a recommendation which, I think, is implicit in the report; that the whole school attendance service is now performing work for which it was never really designed. It was designed at a time when people thought that it was enough to herd children in through the doors of a school and make sure they did not leave until the prescribed time. As the figures show, many of the children simply are not allowing themselves to be herded in and those that are still being herded in are turned off in need of far more help than the often frustrated, embattled and overworked teachers in the schools can be expected to give them. I would be glad to hear the Minister on this very basic point.

What we need is a whole interdisciplinary approach to the problem, one which involves not only the Minister's Department but other Departments and, indeed, local authorities as well. If we do not adopt a creative and constructive policy of positive discrimination in favour of these children we will be condemning them to further deprivation later on in life to a permanent position on the bottom rung of the social and occupational and cultural ladder. These are the people who are in the greatest danger of becoming the rejects of our society and it is on the way that we treat people like these that, ultimately, our society will be judged.

Minister for Education (Mr. R. Burke)

As from the beginning of the school year of 1972-73 the upper age limit for compulsory attendance at school was raised from 14 to 15 years. This was the effect of a statutory order made by the then Minister for Education on 17th April, 1972. For many years the age for compulsory attendance at school has been from six to 14 years although children are accepted for enrolment in national schools from the age of four years. The proportion of children in the four-to-five age group receiving primary education is more than 50 per cent and of those in the five-to-six age group the proportion attending school is almost 90 per cent. In fact, for some years prior to the raising of the upper age limit for compulsory attendance the greatest interest which parents in general had been taking in education and the introduction of schemes for free secondary education, free school transport and free school books had resulted in a large increase in the numbers of pupils remaining voluntarily at school beyond the compulsory age.

It was estimated that the raising of the school leaving age to 15 years would not mean, in fact, an increase in school enrolments of more than some 6,000 to 7,000 pupils. There has been some confusion in relation to the matter of compulsory schooling in so far as it concerned our position in comparison with other European countries. While a number of other countries have longer periods of compulsory schooling than eight years, as applied in Ireland before 1972-73, with the minimum and maximum ages varying between one country and another, in a number of countries the position is largely similar to that which applies in Ireland. With the extension of the school-leaving age to 15 years, giving a period of nine years compulsory schooling, our country took its place amongst those in which the best provision is made in relation to compulsory school attendance.

However, the raising of the school-leaving age created some problems in relation to accommodation but none of these was insuperable and, in fact, satisfactory arrangements were made in all areas in this respect. Probably a more difficult question arose in relation to the curriculum in secondary schools and in the primary schools in relation to the years immediately preceding the transfer of pupils from one school to another. These problems tend to be more acute in areas of social disadvantage. The initial steps required to facilitate a smooth transfer of children from one curriculum to another should be taken in the final school. The introduction of a new curriculum is of very great advantage in this respect. The curriculum for primary schools gives many of the criteria by which various experiences suited to the requirements of the children may be selected and teachers are free to experiment with a wide variety of materials and teaching procedures.

The curriculum in the secondary school for the group of children from 12 to 15 years of age of a wide range of abilities needs particular attention. The present position is that a group, financed by the Department of Education, working under the direction of the education department of Trinity College, is developing an environment-orientated curriculum. The findings of this research are not yet available but should be of considerable assistance when they become available. We must be careful, however, not to act on the assumption that in this respect only disadvantaged children are concerned or that it is such children who will leave school at the earliest possible moment.

A report by Miss Joy Rudd, "Early Leavers", contains references to factors which have had bearing on the drop-out of children from certain areas being greater than in others. It is considered that disadvantaged teenagers are not attracted in some cases by the traditional curriculum and work routine of the secondary school. Some of them feel threatened and insecure when they are transferred to an unfamiliar environment. Another difficulty is that the world of work begins to have an attraction for them at this stage and the motivation to get a job, because it has been customary to do so, can also be a very powerful influence. In fact it is often said that the difference between those who are socially advantaged and those who are not so advantaged could be termed the theory of postponed pleasure, where the child has sufficient motivation to postpone earning his own salary or his own emoluments for a longer period of study so that in the end he may be able to attract a higher salary because of this postponement.

It is clear that if a disadvantaged child is to have a reasonable chance of success in a secondary school there must be close liaison between the child's home, his primary school and the authorities of the secondary school to which he will transfer. There is a need for consultation at frequent intervals throughout the year, between the parents, the teachers of his primary school and the teachers of the school to which he may transfer.

I, hope as Minister, that these liaison arrangements and consultations will take place voluntarily on the part of all those I have mentioned here, the parents, the teachers of primary schools, managers of primary schools and the management and teachers of secondary schools, particularly, in the socially disadvantaged areas. Arrangements are being made to expand the counselling service in secondary schools and it is fair to say that many schools put on a very useful service by teaching the kind of work skills that are required in local industries and placing their students in employment.

There may be a case that counselling in secondary schools in disadvantaged areas should attach very considerable importance to the employment opportunities available in the locality and should endeavour to arrange the content of the school courses accordingly. It may be accepted that many parents are anxious to get employment for their children for economic reasons and that many employers are anxious to secure the services of young people.

In this situation, however, the question of dead-end jobs has to be guarded against as well as an element of exploitation. In this connection, I think it is as well to draw the attention of the House to the statements made recently by the Minister for Labour, in this regard that the school counsellor should be in a position to consider more long-term objectives in the context of the abilities of individual children. He would also be able to explain to parents, the requirements of the apprenticeship board, and to explore the possibilities of establishing special training courses, under the auspices of An Chomhairle Ealaíon. All these matters are, at present receiving the constant and urgent attention of my Department. They arise in a much wider context than that related to the raising of the school leaving age, which, in fact, had application only to a relatively small number of children. They are issues which cannot be solved, once and for all, but need to be kept under constant review in relation to the developing circumstances and to the improvement of the educational provision generally.

I should like to thank Senator Horgan for highlighting the report to which he referred in his contribution. I have noted the points made and will give them my urgent attention. I have already on a number of occasions spoken about the need for educational priority areas. These are being studied in the Department. It is said in the report that the Department should study the educational requirements of people. This is being done constantly. As for demolishing two schools in the area, I am not aware that the author specifically named the two schools. My problem is that until resources come more quickly to me and are flowing more freely I shall be glad to keep even the types of schools that he mentions hoping always to improve them, of course.

The suggestion that pupils from six to 16 should be under the one roof is an interesting one. Thinking of our systems, I am wondering if the author of the report would favour us with his exposition of how this could be done. Would it involve a change between the primary system on the one hand and secondary—using it in the broader sense of the word—on the other, or does he envisage a new type of school to be called a primary-cum-secondary or what?

With regard to the parents committees, I think most of the comments that I have made since I became Minister have emphasised the necessity for such parents' committees. In fact, in the request which I am making shortly to the vocational education committees to set up boards of management in their schools, I am requesting them to have school and home associations as part of the structure of board of management. I think that the Senator has done a useful service in highlighting this report. The Department will give every consideration to the matters raised by him and by the report to which he refers.

It is a great concern for all of us in the Department of Education that these deprived children should be having these problems. I wonder at times whether, in fact, there has been an over-emphasis on the school as a method of social engineering. Perhaps the school, with the best will in the world and with all the facilities available, is limited in what it can do for the deprived section of our people. If I could be persuaded that something that the Department of Education could do, would improve the cultural standing of the parents of the families involved, then I certainly would be on the road to solving this problem. If this can be done by a greater liaison between the teachers and the families involved, I would welcome it. This I think, should be done in any event. This, to me, is the key to it: unless we can raise the cultural level of the families involved, we will only be tinkering with the problem. I thank the Senator for raising the matter and will give it every attention.

Mr. Horgan

Would the Minister accept that there is a counselling need, specifically for the small, but still important, group of children who will leave the educational system completely from a primary school?

Mr. Burke

At age 15?

Mr. Horgan

Yes. They stay until age 15.

Mr. Burke

A special counselling service at primary level?

Mr. Horgan

Yes, extended down-wards to help these children.

Mr. Burke

I would not like to answer that without having studied it in some detail but I certainly will give it every attention. If this can be done in the context of our primary school arrangements, I shall certainly investigate it. I should not like to give the Senator an answer off the cuff that would, perhaps, not be capable of being substantiated later on.

Mr. Brosnan

I should also like to ask the Minister if it is not a fact that, as a representative of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, I had a long discussion with him in this building on educational priority areas? Further, is it not a fact that practically every point in that report was in an article written for The Educational Times, a copy of which the Minister asked for.

Mr. Burke

The answer to the Senator is yes, on both points. I am very grateful to him for that copy, which did not go amiss, by the way. Resources permitting, we will try to implement educational priority areas at the first available opportunity.

The Seanad adjourned at 2.00 p.m., until 3.00 p.m. on Tuesday, 9th July, 1974