I move:
Larger classes, less pupil-teacher contact, a worsened pupil-teacher ratio, thousands of redundant teachers, later recognition and diagnosis of learning problems, no prospects for those at present in colleges of education, and a damaged school administration structure being the inevitable and regressive consequences of the Minister for Education's proposals as outlined in Department of Education circular 20/87 are unacceptable to Seanad Éireann which now calls for the immediate withdrawal of the circular.
In moving the motion I would like to read into the record my regret that the Minister for Education has not seen fit to show up here tonight. In a sense these proposals are so indefensible that I do not blame her for not showing up. Perhaps it will at least keep the debate on a more rational level because at present teachers, parents and pupils are absolutely incensed at the total disregard the Minister and the Department have shown for them in the new figures put forward in circular 20/87 from the Department of Education.
Larger classes, less pupil-teacher contact, a worsened pupil-teacher ratio, thousands of redundant teachers, the later recognition and diagnosis of learning problems, no prospects for those in colleges of education and a damaged school administration structure are just some of the inevitable and regressive consequences of the Minister's proposals as outlined in the Department of Education circular 20/87. They are unacceptable and should be unacceptable to the Members of this House who now call for the immediate withdrawal of this circular.
I know that many of my colleagues on the Government side of the House feel as badly about this as I do. Unfortunately, the exigencies of political life will stop them from saying what they would like to say. I will read into the record the effects these proposals will have on the schools in the localities of many of the Fianna Fáil Senators in this House.
It is time people recognised that this is not a decision taken in the cloisters of Dublin. It is a decision which affects every school and every parish in Ireland. That is not to say that every school in Ireland will lose a teacher. One thing that is quite clear from the debates on these cuts is that the Minister does not have a clue what effects these figures will have on the teacher population or the organisation of schools around the country. She does not seem to know where it is at, at present.
The new staffing figures for primary schools are the most diabolical set of proposals that have ever emanated from the Department of Education. They betray the commitment, vision and work undertaken by successive departmental secretaries, departmental ministries and people from all walks of life. Even though the Minister never likes references to be made to her own family I want to include in that list of people her grandfather who did Trojan work in County Clare to improve the pupil-teacher ratio and who worked on behalf of teachers there for years. It is work that we appreciate and I am sure the man would feel disgusted at what is happening at present.
The proposals seem designed to undermine and to destroy the total fabric of Irish primary education. The Minister apparently intends to implement these arrangements from 1 January 1988. When the enormity of these cuts comes to be realised by people everywhere, it will become apparent that the Minister could, in no circumstances, implement them. I ask her now to consider what she is doing and to change her mind.
One of the difficulties with a debate like this is that one can get lost in statistics. I do not intend to do that. I do not intend to read down through the departmental circular but for the benefit of my colleagues in the Seanad I want to give one example. There could be up to 418 pupils in a school which has ten assistants. With ten class teachers under the new arrangements that gives an average of more than 41 pupils in a class. The first thing I want to warn my fellow Senators about is that the average bears no relation to the size of classes. Unfortunately because of the way we operate the same number of kids are not born per year; nor is there the same intake per class per year. An average of 41 pupils means that there will certainly be classes of 45 pupils and over in all schools with ten assistants where the enrolment is over 400 in the foreseeable future. What does that mean in terms of the numbers in classes? It means on average 5.5 extra pupils per class. It means that there could be up to eight extra pupils in classes in schools in the future.
One of the great difficulties teachers have is trying to explain to people what effect the increase in class size has. How does one quantify it? How does one indicate to people what it means? If Senators can remember the last wet Saturday they were at home when their children of primary school age were around the house and they wondered what to do with them, how to keep them quiet, interested or occupied, I can assure them that in primary schools the problem is roughly 13 times worse. That is what it is like. Teachers have no special knack to make it less stressful for them to deal with those kinds of numbers. They do not have any special knack to make that organisational difficulty easier for themselves. Because of the size of classrooms and the condition of many schools this problem is exacerbated.
I want to quantify what the class size means. If a class of 40 pupils is increased to 44 pupils this is a 10 per cent increase in the size of that class. The school year runs for roughly 10 months. A 10 per cent increase in class size is comparable to losing a month at school. It is comparable to holding pupils at home for a full month every year. That is a problem that we and the educational service are faced with. It is the duty of every teacher, parent and elected public representative, especially the people in this House tonight, to resist the implementation of this disastrous plan by the Minister.
The decision to increase the size of the class will mean an absolute drop in quality which will ultimately mean a reduction in the service provided to the pupils. The already over-strained, over-resourced primary educational service will be reduced to chaos. I was prepared until yesterday to resist the temptation to quote anything the Minister had said in Opposition or before that but I think it is important that I should put some things on the record. Regrettably she is not here to defend herself because what she said has implications about the honesty of people in political life. I will let the House be the judge of that.
Over the years the quality of people entering Irish primary education was second to none. In comparison to other European countries there is no doubt that the Irish primary teacher would rank at the top of the league in terms of quality, intellectual capacity and sheer commitment. Scotland and Denmark are the only two countries that could provide a primary teaching service as good as the Irish one. Over the years a huge investment has been made in primary education in terms of the intellectual investment of the members of the primary teaching profession and in terms of the commitment of the same primary teachers who, as Senators will be well aware, never faltered in their commitment at 3 p.m. or whatever time their school closed. They were always prepared to give to their community. There is not a voluntary organisation or political party in this country who have not depended to a large measure on the voluntary contribution, commitment and involvement by the Irish primary teacher in local communities. This has been an intellectual investment and an investment in commitment.
Because of the quality of those people — and I know the Aire Stáit having been reared in the house of one of these people will be well aware of what I am talking about — we have had results which are comparable to results anywhere in Europe. Despite having the most under-resourced, under-financed, over-stretched primary school service in Western Europe we have still managed to produce people of the highest calibre. The investment was the intellectual capacity and the commitment of the teacher. The price we are now paying is worn out wrecks of teachers at the age of 60 and 65 years who are not getting any thanks from the State for a lifetime of commitment, stress and making ends meet.
It is not good enough and it shows grave irresponsibility on the part of the Minister. It is irresponsible and the already over-strained and under-resourced primary education service will be reduced to chaos. It is a clear abnegation of the Minister's responsibility for education. It shows a horrific lack of understanding on the part of the Minister that the primary education service which seeks to serve all the pupils of the State should be singled out for the deepest most swingeing cuts of all. It will have a disastrous effect. It will reduce pupil-teacher contact, make early diagnosis of learning problems almost impossible and devastate what is already the most under-resourced, under-financed and overstretched educational service in Western Europe.
It is difficult to imagine the effect this will have on the learning process. The amount of time a teacher has with individual pupils relates directly to the number of pupils in the school, or in the class, who need some form of remedial teaching, support or help. It is a fact of life. If the teachers cannot spend time with the pupils, that time is lost and those pupils lose out. Therefore, there will be more need in schools for remedial services. Because there will now be larger classes there will be a need for a greater amount of remedial teaching. Because the classes are larger the remedial groups will be bigger. I sense that that sounds contradictory so let me put it this way. In a class of 40 pupils there could be four pupils in need of remedial attention. Because there will now be 44 pupils in a class by applying the same 10 per cent, which is an acceptable percentage of pupils who need remedial attention, that immediately brings it up to an extra person. Because there are more pupils in the class and the teacher has now less time to spend with individual pupils, there will be a greater need than ever for remedial attention for pupils in that class. The number will go up much higher than the 10 per cent that operated heretofore.
I want to give the lie to the question of the disadvantaged. I was sickened listening to the Minister's response day after day and week after week that the disadvantaged would be looked after and would not be hurt. I will refer to that in a few minutes.
The proposals will have severe consequences for young, qualified and fully trained primary teachers. At present there are up to 2,000 fully qualified, fully trained primary teachers available for work but who are without full time jobs. There are now approximately 1,800 student teachers in colleges of education who will come out during the next three years with no prospects and no future in primary education. By implementing these proposals the Minister will create a stock of almost 4,000 fully qualified, fully trained, available primary teachers who are being trained and qualified at great cost to and investment by this State, without any work and with no prospects.
It was noted in the newspapers over the weekend that the primary education qualification is not being recognised in parts of England and Wales. The most ironic comment of all was that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is now seeking recognition of the Irish qualification in Britain. I recalled a statement made by the Minister, Deputy Fahey, some months back when he said politicians in other countries were less helpful to the Irish emigrant than they might be. It puts it in a totally new context when the Minister for Foreign Affairs not only is encouraging people to emigrate but is now going abroad to open the path for them so that they can get out of this country more quickly. We are creating a future without qualified young people.
The Minister for Finance spoke over the weekend about out great stock of young, highly educated and highly qualified people. I do not know whether if the Minister is aware that even in his own constituency those young people are leaving in football teams every week. That is the level of the movement out of the country. It is time it was pointed out to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the rest of the Government, including the Minister for Education that they have a commitment and a responsibility to the youth of Ireland and that they are clearly turning their backs on them. It is totally and completely unacceptable.
The proposals will hit the poor and disadvantaged. I would like at this stage to make it clear how this will happen. The Minister for Education said over the weeks that the disadvantaged quota of teachers would not be hit. I want to explain this to my colleagues. There is a certain staffing ratio for primary schools, the worst in Europe. Certain schools have been designated socio-economically deprived over the years. These have been given an extra number of teachers. What the Minister is saying is that in the main they will not be affected. Therefore, she can say the stock of teachers for the disadvantaged will not be hit. That is untrue. The appointment figures for all schools in disadvantaged areas will be hit hard and teachers will lose their jobs.
I want to give some indication of what I am talking about and mention some of the more deprived areas of Dublin. Last week a survey of all teachers in north County Dublin showed drastic effects from the cutbacks. The survey covered a total of 1,400 teachers in the north county area. I want to stress that this is not a sample survey; it is a total survey. An incredible 179 of these 1,400 teachers will be wasted to the primary education service in north Dublin through the application of the new appointment figures. Applying that result nationally, and assuming a teaching stock of approximately 18,670, there would be a net national loss of 2,400 teachers wasted to the educational service.
The Minister for Education claimed three times over the weekend that these figures were an over-estimation. She was incorrect. On numerous occasions she tripped herself up and contradicted herself by saying that on the one hand there would be only 1,250 jobs lost and, on the other hand, there would be only 13,000 schools affected. I have lists of schools where up to three jobs will be lost. Her figures simply do not stand up. She is totally and absolutely misinformed.
To emphasise my point, a survey has been completed this week in the north city area of Dublin. Every school and enrolment was surveyed. The results from the north city area are slightly worse than those from the north county area. Therefore, in the north Dublin area, north of the river Liffey, where a total of 2,600 teaching jobs were surveyed, it was found that 354 teaching jobs will be wasted to the service. I hope Senators representing those areas will take note of the effect this will have on those areas. If these figures were applied to Dublin as a totality one could expect more than 700 jobs to be lost in the greater Dublin area. If the figures are the same nationwide, and I will refer to those in a few minutes, we can expect, a striking 2,560 jobs at a minimum to be lost.
I have been asked if these figures will carry from Dublin to the rest of the country. I do not know. I made a honest extrapolation of the figures and applied them as I found them. I made a number of telephone calls this afternoon to check out the position in particular areas.
I had hoped that the Cathaoirleach would be here so that she could hear how it will affect her own area of Ennis. I thought Senator Hillery might be here so that I could tell him about the Miltown Malbay area, I will tell the House anyway. Of the 75 teachers in the 26 schools in the north Clare region, 15 of the posts will be suppressed. Senator Cassidy said to me today that the Castlepollard area would not be hit too badly but I would like to tell him that of the 24 teachers in the Castlepollard area, five will lose their posts. I hope the Senator has plenty of time on his hands to explain to them why this is necessary and why the primary teachers, the pupils and the parents are being made to pay for mistakes somebody else made. The people who are being asked to pay this time are not the people who had money in the good times either.
In real terms these proposals are disastrous. I want to refer to Drumshanbo because Senator Mooney showed a great interest in the motion this afternoon and had some comments to make about it. Of the 11 teachers in Drumshanbo local school, which I think the Senator attended, two will lose their jobs. Those are Maureen O'Keeffe and Dessie Doyle. I am sure the Senator will have a good time explaining to them why their jobs are being lost. That is two jobs out of 11. I hope the Minister is taking note of the fractions we are talking about. Senator Farrell's local school, Grange national school, which is a six teacher school, will be reduced to a five teacher school. Brid Leonard, a local activist in the INTO, will lose her post.