Ar bhealach ní thugann sé aon áthas dom an rud seo a phlé os comhair an tSeanaid, an crúachás ina bhfuil cúrsaí teagaisc i gColáiste Iognáid i gcathair na Gaillimhe faoi láthair agus na deacrachtaí atá ann i leith an mhúinteora a shíl siad go mbeadh ceapaithe ag an am seo is a thuig siad a cheapachán a bheith glactha leis ag an Roinn agus ag an Aire.
It give me no pleasure to have to raise this matter in the Seanad. It falls into two sections with, perhaps, a third dimension. The first of these is in relation to the difficulties that have arisen in the case of Coláiste Iognáid in Galway city. I would like at the outset to apologise for any confusion I may have caused in my notice of motion in this regard as to whether it was a thirteenth, fourteenth or a sixteenth each. We understand perfectly what is at stake. It is, in fact, approval of an assistant teacher for which application has been made.
The issues involved, as I understand them, fall into two clearly defined categories. The first of these is the circumstances of Coláiste Iognáid which is a scoil lán-Ghaelach, primary school. May I confess a personal interest in this regard in so far as three of my sons are attending this school which makes me familiar with and perhaps additionally interested in the circumstances of its difficulties. Coláiste Iognáid is a school with 450 pupils. It is an all Irish primary school. It reflects the interests of the parents of Galway city and their commitment to the Irish language that so many of them send their children to this school.
The second issue that arises is the more general one of the function of the patron in relation to the primary school system. It is something about which I am not clear having looked at the basic manual for the administration of the primary school system which makes reference to the role of the parent and the possible assumption of the role of patron by a board of management and so forth. In general, it is unclear and, in this instance, it has occasioned difficulties.
I would like to flesh out the case a little more clearly. Scoil Iognáid, an all Irish school, was presented with a development plan in July 1985. This plan was drafted and submitted, I understand, by officials of the Department of Education, was submitted to the board of management of Scoil Iognáid and was approved by them. At discussions which took place then and later, it was clearly understood that it was a normal development that the additional teacher would be appointed when the numbers warranted it and that the arrangements for the school would be similar to those for an urban school of its size. It is my view that the development of Scoil Iognáid should not be open-ended. It should be limited to a particular size. Its development by now justifies the appointment of an additional assistant teacher on a permanent basis.
In September 1985, when the numbers justified it, an application was made to the Department of Education for the additional post. As I understand it, the number on the roll having risen the normal expectation of the board of management, the principal and the parents was that the post would be filled. A couple of issues arise immediately here. The post was seen as the completion of a phase of a planned development to which the Department not only assented but in many ways had initiated and which has been agreed by all the parties concerned. We are all interested in the development of the issue in the best interest of parents, teachers and pupils.
The issue of the patron arises in so far as a meeting took place which was attended by representatives of the other schools under the joint patronage of the patron in question. It was at this stage that concern was expressed at the development of Scoil Iognáid, that such development might well be seen as in some way affecting the overall development of other schools. I emphasise at this stage that my consultation with the principal teacher, with the staff and the parents, and being a parent myself, showed that we did not want an enormous school with an open-ended set of plans for development but we saw the appointment, application for which had been made, as the conclusion of an existing phase of development.
After the meeting of the other school heads, to which the head of the all Irish school was not invited, it appeared that correspondence ensued between the principal of the school, an tUasal Niall Ó Morchú on behalf of the board of management and the Department. In some of these pieces of correspondence reference was made to the effect that such proposals for development, as had been agreed and had been reasonably expected, were now conditional on approval by the patron. In some places the reference is: "This, of course, presumes the agreement of the patron". On other occasions it was put in another way but it is the same thing: "It is assumed that the agreement of the Bishop will be forthcoming". I am very anxious not to particularise this. Obviously this meant that the expected development, the expected permanent appointment, had now become conditional.
It is in this sense then that the issue spills over into the more general issue, an issue of fundamental administration in education as far as I am concerned. A meeting took place between the board of management of Scoil Iognáid and the Bishop. The outcome of that meeting — here I am relying on the Galway Observer of Wednesday, 14 May 1986 in an interview given by an tUasal Ó Morchú to representatives of that newspaper — was:
It was understood on the basis of the meeting that the Bishop would write to the Department of Education to say that his belief was that there should be orderly development of primary education and that Scoil Iognáid should not develop very much in an additional way and should not be taken as constituting a veto on the post for which application had been made.
Thereafter, there was a series of meetings in the Department of Education between the board of management's representatives and the officials of the Department of Education. The factual position is, of course, that we are without the teacher.
At different times in this story different suggestions have been made about the possibility of a temporary appointment. I understand that we are talking about a normal set of expectancies justified in terms of roll numbers, justified in terms of a development plan being agreed, justified with all the procedures of consultation having taken place between the management, parents, representatives and so forth suddenly encountering difficulties and those difficulties being specifically related to the perceived impact of development by the particular school involved on the development plans for the school.
I worry about this particular case. I ask the Minister of State, whom I am very glad to welcome to this House and I wish him every success in his duties, for a reply to the particular question. What is happening, what is going to happen in relation to the approval of the teacher in Scoil Iognáid? The more general question that I am very interested in is this. If there be a plan agreed between the Department and the head of a school, the head of a school and board of management and the Department, at what stage can it be put off the rails by decisions taken at meetings which are chaired by the patron of a school or set of schools? How does the patron execute functions in balancing one set of expectancies of one school from another? Are they over and above the Department's regulation? Are they over and above the normal expectancies that come from an agreed plan of development? Where does it all lead to in the end if you can say that the regular expectations of one particular school must now be judged anew? What is the new circumstances? Is there a case, for example, that a person should be patron of only one school? Why have a patron at all? What enables a patron to know not only the reasonable requirements of one school but the reasonable requirements of several schools and be able to change the expectancies of one school and set them off against the notional expectancies of another school?
It seems to me to be something that does not, at least as I encounter it, to fit with the norm of accountability. I know who the Minister for Education is and who the Minister of State is. I know who elects myself, I know who elects people on to different committees but I cannot find how patrons came to be, how patrons functions are specified, where they begin, where they end, where they cut across administrative decisions, where they cut across ministerial direction, where they cut across, for example, the discussions of parents, teachers, pupils and so forth. It was with that purpose in mind that I decided to raise this. The Minister of State will note that I have not personalised the discussion in any way and I have tried as much as possible to defuse the entire situation. An animus could be created between the heads of schools, between parents in different schools and different boards of management that can be avoided. I suggest that these are principles by which the matter can be resolved. Approval for the permenant post should be issued forthwith. It should be clearly understood that the development of Scoil Iognaid is in fact within the context of the plan as agreed with the Department that, we should go back to that position and that we should fill out the module as it is in fact in every other place and at present it is a teacher short. That finishes the issue as it arises in relation to that particular school.
If you accept that that is the overall development of that school, that enables the rest of the school heads to look forward, given normal demographic developments, to what will be the natural expectancies in relation to enrolment and so forth. If it is not resolved in this way other issues will arise. There is, for example, the overwhelming case that can be made for this school. It is an all Irish school with enormous involvement of parents, many of whom are Irish speaking who came originally from Teaghlaigh Gaeilge, people who wanted Irish in their homes and in their schools which led to the establishment of this school. All of this could be added in as an additional factor. I feel, quite frankly, that not only will it be seen to be a national school that is being treated differently but it will be seen to an all Irish primary school that is being treated differently because of the unique principle of attraction it has, that it was attracting the children of parents who wanted their children taught through Irish at primary level and that somehow or another it is being discriminated against on that particular basis.
I urge that what we want in Galway city — I say this as a parent — is the orderly development of primary school provision and we want to see as much openness as possible. We have not been assisted by meetings which were semiclosed. We are not assisted by the appearance that has been given of promises broken. I say for all of these reasons that the particular principle might be perhaps used by the Minister of State that he might give his answer perhaps in two ways. There would be a direct reply to the particular instance that I have given, which is the appointment of the permanent teacher for which application has been made by Scoil Iognaid, and the more general issue, as to the confusion that may arise in relation to the exercise of the role of patron, his views in this matter and perhaps where I might go for clarification as to where the role of patrons begin and end and indeed, whether they are necessary, which is a more general issue to which we can return on another date.
