Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1990

Vol. 126 No. 16

Equality of Education: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator Jackman on Wednesday, 28 November 1990:

That Seanad Éireann deplores the failure of the Minister for Education to ensure equality of educational provision for all students irrespective of the sex, and Socio-Economic background of the students, and calls on the Minister:

(a) to make available the required number of teachers to reduce the size of classes to reasonable levels;

(b) to provide specialist teachers for remedial work, guidance counselling and other specialist areas at both Primary and Post-Primary levels;

(c) to provide modern educational facilities in all schools including Science and Language Laboratories, Physical Education Facilities and Technology rooms;

(d) to eliminate all sub-standard school buildings;

(e) to extend the second level school cycle to six years so that all students can avail of a six year cycle;

(f) to provide educational specialist support for educationally disadvantaged students;

(g) to provide support for teachers through a comprehensive system of In-Service Education; and

(h) to provide adequate funding for all schools enabling them to provide an education of equity for all students.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

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

"notes that almost 20 per cent of the overall provision for net Government Expenditure on Supply Services for 1990 is allocated to Education

and commends the Minister for Education:

for keeping education policy under ongoing review;

for ensuring high quality broadly based education for all ability levels during the compulsory cycle of education;

for increasing resources in order to cater for the needs of pupils with educational difficulties;

for reform measures which encourage and facilitate pupils to continue in full-time education after compulsory schooling in programmes suited to their aptitudes and abilities; and

for ensuring the participation of concerned interests in the development of the Irish education system."

—(Senator Mullooly.)

Professor Murphy

I just had enough time last week to welcome the Minister for Education to the House. Since I knew that she would not be in this week I wanted to say nice things to her and, in fact, I was, perhaps, too effusive in my praise. The Minister certainly looked as startled as if I had made an elopment proposal. It is instinctive in the Minister to think that the Independents will be critical. I meant it when I said that I think the Minister is a vigorous, hardworking and sympathetic Minister for Education. I liked her speech. The Minister did not insult us by reading out the speech in detail, which is a terrible waste of time, but very intelligently summarised its main points and added some others as well. The Minister referred to the forthcoming Education Bill and had some interesting things to say about that. I am sorry the Minister is not here today but I am glad to see our old friend, Minister Calleary, here.

It is particularly appropriate that education should be highlighted in this vocational assembly — vocational in theory — where teachers are so remarkably represented. The proposer and seconder of the motion are both teachers and the two leading speakers on the Government side are also teachers and there will be others to follow. My own interest is very much part of my whole brief, and I recall my close association with the ASTI for some years before I went on to third level. We are very fortunate to have in the House two distinguished officers — the president of the ASTI, Senator Costello, and the secretary general-designate of the INTO, Senator O'Toole. That is a very welcome conjunction of talent at the highest level. In that context the Minister's suggestion that we should have regular educational debates was particularly welcome. We should take the Minister up on that and get her confirmation that this should be the primary House for debating education.

I am all in favour of the proposal forms which are mentioned in the motion. It is like being against sin. I cannot imagine anybody not wanting a better teacher-pupil ratio and so on. I pay tribute to the sincerity and commitment of my friend, Senator Mary Jackman. It is difficult not to conclude that a party political game is being played here to a certain extent. There is a sense of deja vu in looking at that motion and thinking that it could have been put down in identical terms by Fianna Fáil some time between 1983 and 1987 and that you would have an identical amendment welcoming progress on the part of the then Government Senators. After all, there is no profound difference in educational philosophy between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil or, indeed, between any of the Members in this House. We all agree on the desirability of reform. We would all love to spend money on such reform and it would be, moreover, a very popular thing to do. The argument beyond that is simply point-scoring. I deplore the fact that this subject should have to be approached in a fractional way and that there will have to be a vote at the end of the debate. Our memories are short. We recall that in 1983-87, it was Mrs. Gemma Hussey who was then the ministerial arch-scrooge in educational spending. As I say, there is a sense of dejá vu here in seeing the same thing happen again.

I am in sympathy with the details of the motion. I am also in reasonable sympathy with the specifics of the amendment, except that I am totally puzzled as to what "concerned interests" mean in the final section of the amendment. That is certainly vague "... ensuring the participation of concerned interests in the development of the Irish education system".

I agree with nearly all of the points of the motion except, again, if I may be critical of item (h) in the motion which says that adequate funding should be provided for all schools to enable them to provide an education of equity for all students. That, if I may so without offence, is so general as to be totally meaningless — in other words, we want an educational utopia. That is what that means, and I am all for that too. But that would not get us very far.

There is such a wealth of expertise here on education —I mean up-to-date expertise, people who are au fait with the details of the position in primary and post-primary schools —that I have no intention of covering the well-trodden grounds here. As I say, we have great talent, we have virtually an embarres de richesses here between all the people I have mentioned. There is little need for speakers to cover ground already well known. For example, the ASTI have produced this excellent brochure called Facing the Facts in which much of the statistical information presented by speakers up to now is already covered, on inadequate buildings, prefabs, pupil-teacher ratio, etc. I take it that all Members of the House are acquainted with this brochure and with the campaign which has currently been mounted by the ASTI, another stage of which developed on 28 November last when the ASTI launched a survey on the staffing, funding and facilities in second level schools, as reported in the press the following day.

There again the details are well known — the dropping of subjects, the level of voluntary contributions necessary to keep things going, the appalling situation about prefabs and so on. I have only one fault to find with the ASTI booklet and that is a pedantic but, I would hope, a justifiably pedantic point, that on page 5 there is something about which they should know better. They use a phrase "less teachers". It is all very well for the popular press to talk about "less teachers" but I would expect the ASTI to remember that the proper adjective there is "fewer"— a word which is so strange now as to not merit any recognition.

The argument I would pick out myself would be improving the pupil/teacher ratio, which, as we are reminded, is not only good for children but good for teachers as well. In the INTO Tuarascáil of November 1990 reference is made to the anger which exists among young teachers in the country who cannot get jobs because of the disastrous pupil-teacher ratio. I would remind the House that that anger is by no means confined to this side of the Atlantic. I was in Boston recently talking to a number of young graduates, some of whom were working for peanuts at a very low level of teaching in the parochial school system, which simply does not pay, more of whom are doing all kinds of menial jobs, and who feel betrayed by this country and by the deficiencies of its educational policy. That is something I feel strongly about. If I may offer an entirely improper personal note, my daughter is one of those emigrants and I am not immune from the anger she directs at the Establishment in this country.

I regret the dropping of subjects. I think more could have been made about that. There is an impoverishment in the curriculum, representative of the fact that subjects have to be dropped, notably, perhaps, political studies.

I welcome very much the in-service item and point out that our universities are moving in that direction now and that adult education in our university in Cork has been transformed into taking care of continuing a second chance education with a large programme for in-service there.

Finally, I would like to welcome the Minister's mention of the forthcoming Education Bill. I hope that the preliminary papers — green or white or whatever colour — will be well debated in this House, where they should be properly debated. I congratulate the Minister for this enterprise. Many of us had been pressing for the introduction of an Education Bill for a long time. It is more than a matter of tidying up. It is more than a matter of rationalising approaches. It is even more than a matter of putting legal sanction on what have been up to now very dubious methods of running education through Government circulars.

Above and beyond all those necessary reforms, what the Education Bill, I hope, will do is take education out from closed doors into the area of public scrutability and public control. There may be many people who are like that, and I do not mean the obvious ones. From an item in the media the other day it seemed that not all the powerful teachers unions are in favour of the Education Bill, which leads me to suspect that when we list off the vested interests who have been colluding behind those closed doors — the Civil Service mandarins, the bishops, the religious leaders and so on — we should also take into account powerful union leaders because they are not terribly enamoured of the idea of being subjected to public accountability as well.

I hope the Minister will face up to all these problems on the long road down to the actual legislation of the measure. I hope she remembers that this is now a changed country. Our society is a totally changed society, for good or ill. The Minister will be applying this legislation in a very different society from the early days of the State and I hope she recognises that all the children of the nation, irrespective of religious belief or practice, are entitled to equal opportunity in the areas of teacher training and teacher employment.

Miss Keogh

Since I became a Member of this House I have been asked at various times how I reconcile the previous comments of the Progressive Democrats about the redundancy of the Seanad with my presence in it. Of course, the answer is very simple: I am committed to exploring whatever potential the Seanad offers. I am equally committed to stating unequivocally when I see the Seanad being used for pointless table thumping.

I have been a teacher, so I read through the eight sections of the original motion and I am in agreement with every single one of them. Yes, of course we should have more teachers to reduce class sizes; of course we should eliminate all substandard school buildings; of course, we should provide adequate funding for all students. If the Senators sponsoring this motion want to come along with any more lists of unassailably valid aspirations I would be for them too. I would be for a peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. I would be for the ending of the Gulf crisis and I would be for the abolition of poverty, homelessness, depression and prejudice.

What will all of that agreement on those obviously desirable things bring? Nothing much, because we live in a world of financial constraints, we live in an Ireland which is beginning to come to terms with the limitations of the money available for public spending purposes. Against that background this motion, using a topical illusion, reads like a letter to Santa. It is a "give me" letter — give me this, give me that, give me the other. It assumes the Minister for Education has been doing nothing to achieve the objectives reasonable people would be seeking. That is not true. The Minister has not been inactive or passive. Her plans, which were announced last week, to create a central Education Act indicate she is thinking deeply about education and its place in the national thought process. That is something that I welcome, and I am not alone in saying this. I would like to add that the Progressive Democrats sought that type of approach and have asked for such an Act to be formulated and then implemented.

What worries me at the moment is that we tend to say — and the IDA indicate it in posters all over the world — that we have a highly educated young workforce. That is true. We know all the statistics about how many electronics graduates Ireland produces each year and we are very focused on the achievers, so that we have developed a points driven mentality about education. My fear is that we have developed a points driven mentality about youth in general.

If one was to monitor the national newspapers for a year one could come away with the impression that young Irish people did very little else except cram for points and for where those points would take them. We have spent the last decade congratulating ourselves on how young people are no longer condemned to the permanent and pensionable box. It is arguable that we are putting them now in a worse box — in the points box. At least the bright academic ones who make it into the points box are in a box which is highly regarded but what about those who do not make it into the points box? What about the ones who go to schools baffled by the notion that free education is a marvellous benefit to them and who learn one lesson loud and clear while they are there, which is how to be a failure?

In a points driven educational system that is inevitable. From early on, the nonacademic student is loosing self-esteem. They do not feel they belong. They do not feel they matter. They do not feel they can affect or change things. For too many of our students school is like a foreign country. They come from homes where there may be no books, no family cycle of academic success. They move into a place where it is all books, more than a stone of them to carry to school every day. Not only that, but it becomes clear to them quickly that they have either got to perform academically or they have got to perform in sporting terms. If they cannot make it in either field, then they begin to slip through the mesh.

Undoubtedly, there are too few remedial teachers. Ideally, the situation should be that every school has access to the services of a remedial teacher according to its needs. At second level there are far too few career guidance counsellors. It is vitally important that students under pressure have someone who is not completely interested in their marks, in their points, but has some interest in them as people and who sees some potential in them other than exam success. We could argue about the minimum number of guidance counsellors that are required per student. It is too easy to suggest that there is a formula of numbers that will solve our problems — take X number of students, add Y number of guidance counsellors and all will be well, because all will not be well.

We talk of Ireland's educational system as if it were some bland common unity right throughout the country and that is not so. Teaching in some areas of Dublin is radically different to teaching in other areas of Dublin. Teaching in any of our cities is different to teaching in rural areas. Teachers will tell you that. The pupils cannot tell one that because they do not have the experience of different places, different approaches. To suggest that what will work in Tallaght will work in Askeaton is naïve. We have to develop an educational system that is responsible and flexible.

A school in an area of high unemployment, where several generations of many families have never had third level education or a satisfying career, is dealing with a completely different set of expectations from a school in a wealthy suburb here in Dublin. The staffing levels and approach of that school should respond to the real needs of students, not just to the global requirments of a points-driven system. We should be flexible enough to have a higher number of remedial teachers in areas of greater need, not to get everybody up to the level where he or she can enter the points race but to get everybody comfortable with the idea of learning and to allow students to learn how to learn. We have to stop addressing the educational system from the top down. It is unacceptable that we should be patting ourselves on the back for the numbers of graduates we produce while at the same time the exact same system is turning out functional illiterates who, if they are lucky, may end up in a FAS training scheme, being taught the basic skills of writing a letter of application or making a telephone call.

We must also stop addressing the educational system in too long a time frame. It has been acknowledged that Ireland in the past has had an abominable track record in teaching languages to young people. That nettle has been grasped. We are teaching some languages in a better way than we did in the past, so students are getting at least the basics of a spoken language. Of course, we should have more language laboratories, especially when we consider the likelihood of increased mobility in the workforce after 1992. The situation is that at the moment we are teaching French and a scatter of other languages. We are not saying things such as the unification of the two Germanys, are going to have a profound effect on Europe. This is going to change the economy of the entire Continent. It is going to change the industrial base of the Continent. The language is going to become much more important than it has been in the past. Therefore we need to have many more students becoming competent in the language of the fairly immediate future. That is what I mean by flexibility.

Education is certainly the leading out of potential and an exploration of knowledge, but it must also be an inculcation of the skills and capacities needed in the real world. We have not on any side of this House being creative enough in finding ways to make it more responsive. It is very sad that the director of the Industrial Development Authority has to say publicly that there are not enough graduates of particular disciplines to meet the needs of companies intending to set up in this country in the next few years. It is even sadder that there was such a "shrug, shrug" response to his comments from people who, like the proposers of this motion, claim to care about education.

Every single demand in that motion is about money. It is a call to throw money at our educational system. It is a suggestion that money is all that is required. I reject that. Money is not all that is required, and this is the type of thing that we should be looking at under the aegis of this new Education Bill. We require flexibility, innovativeness and openness. We need to find out from students what they want and what they hope for. We need to find out from parents what they want and hope for. Education is not just about buildings, teachers and points. Education is about giving a sense of possibility, a feeling of self-worth, a message that Ireland values or cherishes all the children equally, whether they are academics or not.

Mr. Costello

I have listened to a couple of speakers since I came in. They have more or less denigrated the motion as though what is in it is self-evident and that we are all in agreement with it and, therefore, that we should not bother raising it. I, on the other hand, regard the motion as being very important. We should ensure that we hammer home the message that, if the issues in this motion are not being met by our educational system and are not being addressed by our Department of Education or by a Minister for Education, it is important for us to emphasise that. Even if it takes repetition, we should certainly do so because all of the issues that feature in this motion are exceedingly important. They are essential to the education of the children of this country. If we do not address them then we are failing in our duty. I would not under any circumstances cast any doubt, suspicion or aspersion on the motion but I would say: let us face up to it; let us prioritise what is missing in education and let us deal with it.

Senator Murphy spoke about the Education Bill and its importance. I would agree entirely. It is important that we do have an Education Act. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have a commitment to an Education Act and it was part of the last Programme for National Recovery. No doubt it will be continued in the forthcoming one. My own union have a committee working on it at present. We are concerned also that education as it has operated in the past by administerial diktat and by ministerial circular going around to schools and not coming before the Houses of the Oireachtas, should not continue. You need a firm, legal statutory framework for the operation of the education system.

It is many a long year since we saw legislation on education coming before this House or before the other House. I do not think that is good enough. We certainly do welcome consolidation of various developments that have taken place in the education arena. Of course, we must also ensure that certain matters that are negotiated by the trade union movement in terms of pay and conditions remain sacrosanct because they are part of the working conditions. They were negotiated and that is the normal role of the trade union movement and of the employer.

Yesterday we had an historic date in terms of teacher unity. The inaugural meeting of the three teacher unions heralded the beginning of an era when all of the education bodies will be together. The trade union movment — the INTO, the ASTI and the TUI, consisting of in excess of 40,000 teachers — will speak with one voice for their members, obviously in terms of pay and conditions but also in terms of the professional role of their members and in terms of the question of a better deal for education in all its forms for the pupils, for the school and for the system in general. That it will be a major boost to addressing these issues that are here before us in stark fashion.

My union have been conducting a campaign over the last eight months to draw attention to some of the areas that are identified here. We seek to prioritise education among our services in this country. Our concern has been that there is a crisis in education. That crisis is not necessarily of this Government's making, it is of successive Governments' making throughout the eighties. There has been a decline in educational provision in relation to staffing and resources over a period of almost a decade. As a result we are in a serious situation at present, leading to demoralisation within the education system and threatening the high calibre of product for which our education system is internationally known and through which our business sector sells this country to the world. We attract business and muiltinational companies because of the labour market, because of the high quality and flexibility of our workforce. The danger is that that may no longer be the case, and that is our concern.

The reason for that I attribute largely to what I have called in other fora the three Rs — the three wrongs in our system. The first one of those is class size. We have allowed our classes to grow enormously large with the result that we have the largest class sizes of any other country in Europe at present. The survey that the ASTI conducted indicated that at post-primary level there are in excess of 30 pupils in two-thirds of the classes in the country. That is an enormous number.

Classrooms such as these were designed, very many of them in the late sixties and seventies, for much smaller classes when the pupil-teacher ratio was considerably less than what it is at present. There are young men and women from 13 to 18 years of age in classes numbering more than 30. It is impossible to give individual attention to students in those circumstances. How can we talk about giving fair and equitable attention to an individual pupil who is in need of specialist attention in those circumstances? It is not possible. We have, in all, one teacher for every one of 170 pupils who is in need of specialist care and attention in educational terms, as a result of disadvantage of one type or another. That is an atrocious statistic, but that is the statistic that exists in our education system at present.

We are supposed to have a free education system yet virtually every school in the country is involved in fund-raising or collecting funds from parents. The voluntary contribution, as it is called, is one of the most compulsory things in this country. Every parent is expected to make a voluntary contribution. That contribution is not for luxuries; it is for essential services in the school. To my mind that is a disgrace and a scandal. We already pay through a very heavy and burdensome tax system for the services but money is demanded from parents again, a second demand for education provisions, for essential services in the educational arena. That is not tolerable.

Facilities have suffered in many schools as a result of the inadequacy of funding. Let me say also that per capita we spend less money per pupil than any other country in the EC. Our expenditure per pupil is roughly one-half that in the United Kingdom. That is not good enough and it means, of course, that parents have to make contributions. It also means that facilities are inadequate, that schools have no laboratories or libraries. The survey we did showed that 20 per cent of post-primary schools had no library. Can you imagine teaching the new junior curriculum in English without a library when the whole focus of that very worth while initiative in curricular development is to ensure that pupils have access to a broad range of books, projects, assignments and practical work? A school library would provide a more flexible system of education rather than the simple rigid textbook we all had throughout the school system. New methodology and a new curriculum and syllabi are being provided and they are being undermined because the Minister has not provided the resources for dealing with it.

In this day and age 28 per cent of schools have no gymnasium or physical education facilities. That is unacceptable. Fifty three per cent of the schools we surveyed at post-primary level over the last eight years have lost subjects from the curriculum. We are talking about a comprehensive system of education, about expanding it; about developing a curriculum and we find that there has been a loss of subjects, not just of Latin or Greek but in critical areas: in the sciences, in modern languages. Twelve per cent of schools have lost modern languages as subjects. Yet, here we have the Minister for Education talking about the enormous provision she is going to make in modern languages. Twelve per cent of schools have lost business education subjects and 11 per cent have lost science subjects.

We are supposed to be competitive in the modern world. In January 1993, we will be operating in full competition with all the other countries in the EC. Remember, it is competition. We will be expecting our youngsters to compete in the same way. They are supposed to be proficient in modern languages. People in the industrial and business sector speak about the need for proficiency in languages. Yet, how many schools have a language laboratory? Just a handful of schools have language laboratories. In the context of Europe, we are at the bottom of the league in relation to the cycle of post-primary education. We have a five year cycle. Every other country in Europe has a minimum of six years and the average in the rest of the EC combined is 6.9 years. In the context of our competitiveness that will be a major problem.

There are many inadequate school buildings. Forty per cent of schools have prefabs. Obviously that is a major area that requires to be redressed with modern buildings in the context of the new health and safety legislation. That could be a very serious matter facing the Department unless capital funding is provided in the forthcoming budget.

In terms of recruitment we find that in the post-primary sector this year only 10 per cent of teachers who qualified with the higher diploma got jobs; 90 per cent of those who qualified got no permanent jobs; 10 per cent got permanent jobs; 50 per cent got part-time jobs; 20 per cent got jobs in England or elsewhere and another 20 per cent simply went to other areas or are unemployed.

There are two other points I would like to address briefly. One is the question of in-service. In-service is something that is virtually non-existent. We have no national framework for in-service. Tremendous work is being done by teacher centres around the country but they are operating on a shoestring. If they prove themselves over a period of time, they might get a small grant from the Department of Education. There is no staffing, no secretarial or research facilities, no provision for seconding teachers for work and research. All of these facilities exist across the board in Northern Ireland. There is no facility either for short term in-service for teachers or for longer-term retraining. That is a serious disadvantage in our educational system.

In relation to the introduction of the junior certificate, we were promised three days by the Minister for Education. We have not got a single one this year. Again, the Minister reneged on a commitment she made on 19 November to introduce a day of in-service before Christmas. She has now reneged on that and it is not going forward. I would like an answer to that. Teachers are preparing for the junior certificate; they have been promised some in-service; we have not got it. Why have we not got it? I would like to know the reason.

My final point is in relation to the junior certificate. I applaud the initiative that has taken place over a period of time in introducing changes in the curriculum at junior certificate level and in future we will be working for the senior certificate. These will be radical changes, the first major changes in the history of the country. However, there are major problems of resources and staffing and now because of the ad hoc approach, we find ourselves with a major problem regarding assessment where the Minister embarked on one course of assessment initially and now in mid-stream, half-way through the introduction of the junior certificate, she has changed her mind. Everything has been thrown into chaos and confusion. Teachers do not know what is happening, pupils do not know what is happening. There are 40,000 pupils who will be doing their examinations in June 1992 and here we are mid-way through the course without any sample papers, without any direction, without any focus as to where the courses are going. We want an answer from the Minister to that. It is not good enough to initiate curriculum reform without underpinning it with the resources and without ensuring that it is developed on a proper, logical, structured framework, not on an ad hoc basis.

I am asking the Minister to address that point and particularly the latter two points: why have we not got some in-service — the short term in-service we were promised, the national in-service that we need — and how it is that the Minister is suddenly changing her mind and creating chaos in relation to the assessment of the provision for the junior certificate which is due to be examined in 1992.

Mr. McKenna

Ba mhaith liomsa mo bhuíochas a ghabháil as ucht seans d'fháil chun labhairt ar an rún seo. Aontaím leis an leasú atá curtha síos agus lena dúirt an tAire an tseachtain seo caite i dtaobh díospóireacht ar chúrsaí oideachais a thionscnú le linn gach seisiún.

I have listened to the contributions that have been made here this evening and I must say I agree in the most part with what Senator Keogh and Senator Murphy have been saying in relation to the motion. It would smack of political opportunism, that you list a set of demands and the impression conveyed is that absolutely nothing whatsoever is being done. It is understandable that the Government would reply by putting down amendments because in actual fact nothing could be further from the truth. While the individual speakers that I mentioned have not suggested by any stretch of the imagination that everything is absolutely perfect, one has to recognise that there is a great deal of work being done. It is important that we would write that into the record and reiterate some of the statements that have been made in relation to the whole area of education.

As the Minister stated, the financial allocation for education in 1990 was almost £1,400 million and that represents more than 6 per cent of gross national product and almost 20 per cent of net Exchequer expenditure on non-capital services. It is no harm to point out that the corresponding figure in 1986 was just 16 per cent. By any measurement that is a huge amount of money and shows the commitment to education by the Government.

The policy of the Government is to provide a broad education for all ability levels, with special emphasis on those children who are disadvantaged. In the post-primary area a numerous schools which have had bad accommodation have been replaced or upgraded. I am not suggesting that any sector or any school should have to accept bad accommodation. There is a very major effort being made by the Minister for Education to upgrade all schools and it is not fair to say that nothing is being done in that area. It is a priority of Government and will remain a priority of Government.

Senator Costello referred to the junior certificate. Pupils are now in their second year of the new junior certificate programme. The Senator said that there were radical proposals and that it was a completely new direction. The person who is responsible for that is entitled to receive congraluations and recognition. One has to recognise that major developments like that take time. You just do not decide tonight that there will be a new programme, a junior certificate of education, and tomorrow have everything in place. It must be recognised that difficulties will arise that cannot be foreseen and that must be overcome.

The programme for the junior certificate is broadly based and incorporates the existing group certificate and intercert curricula and the emphasis is on practical development in as many subjects as possible. That is to be welcomed. A great deal of work has been done in the development of a new senior cycle curriculum which will provide for a wide range of aptitudes and abilities.

The Minister has also announced that a working group will report shortly on the general question of assessment and certification of second level vocational training programmes with a view to the establishment of a national system which will set a frame of reference for employers for evaluation of certification and about the uniform approach to the certification. That is an extremely important development. That announcement received a very good response and widespread approval at a recent conference in Malahide, which was attended by people from the RSA in England, from the City and Guilds of London and from a number of certification bodies. It is only appropriate that in that area we should have our own body for national certification. I look forward to the time when that is in place and there will be a uniform approach to certification.

The Minister also introduced a vocational leaving certificate programme in September 1989. This two-year course gives a student a grounding in specific technological areas plus a modern continental language and, very importantly, work experience. There is also the second chance education under the VTOS for adults over 21 who are unemployed for 15 months or more. Also, resulting from talks under the auspices of the Central Review Committee, 175 concerning posts for disadvantaged areas were provided, plus a number of others to VECs where the schools were the "only provider" in their area and the pupil-teacher ratio was reduced to 19:1.

Everyone would love to see the pupil-teacher ratio reduced to a very low level but we have to cut our cloth according to our measure.

Senator Costello referred to the local contribution to schools and said that, on the one hand we pay substantial amounts in income tax and then we have to pay a local contribution to education. Inherent in that is the suggestion that taxation should be increased. I do not think anyone on this side or the other side of the House would suggest that income tax should be increased for the PAYE or any other sector. It is generally agreed that income tax is far too high. The question is where will all this money come from in order to increase allocation? It has to come from somewhere and that is a fact that must be recognised.

The Minister has mentioned on numerous occasions that she is very anxious to improve the pupil-teacher ratio and to provide the option of a six-year cycle for all post-primary schools. In that connection, I was delighted to hear the Minister refer to the fact that some schools are using the transition year solely for the purpose of a three-year leaving certificate cycle, which is totally against the purpose for which the transition year was designed. As the Minister has indicated, the transition year was for the students to find themselves and to develop and that there would not be any emphasis on examinations or anything of that nature. I was delighted to hear that the Minister was taking that matter in hand and that unless the transition year is used for the proper purpose, the school concerned would not be funded in respect of that year's programme.

I was glad to hear Senator Murphy saying that he would look forward to the day when all schools would have public accountability. In that connection I want to refer to a Bill that was introduced in the other House in the name of Fine Gael, who put down this motion on education. It was introduced by the then spokesman on education, Deputy John Bruton, who is now leader of the Fine Gael Party. I refer to the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill, 1990 which sought to remove the appointment of teachers to vocational education committee second level schools from the committees and to replace those members by a local appointments commission. I was a member of the Standing Council of the IVEA and also a member of the Teachers' Union of Ireland. I want to compliment the Minister for Education on the stand she took in the other House in relation to that Bill and to say that, thankfully, in their wisdom the other House rejected the Bill. If Deputy Bruton wants to improve the lot of Fine Gael, I would suggest that he should re-appraise his attitude in relation to the whole question of local democracy. A slur was being cast on the members of vocational education committees and there were unfounded allegations of political interference in the appointment of teachers. They have cast a slur on the whole vocational education committee system of education that has served this country so well down through the years.

It is a pity that Fine Gael did not consult with their local representatives because, from speaking to the members of the vocational education committees, I know it is those members who are the most vociferous in condemning any attempt to take control away from the vocational education committees. The implication in that proposal was, that all teachers in the vocational education committee sector are in some way inadequate and not capable of doing their job. The reality, of course, is totally different. The professionalism and dedication of vocational teachers has made an outstanding contribution to the development of our second level education system and has ensured that thousands of students who otherwise would not have received the opportunity could avail of the chance to further their education and with outstanding results.

There is never a vetting system of students who attend our vocational education committee system. We have an open door for everyone and it does not matter, creed or colour, they are all welcome. There are no entrance examinations, no testing of ability. The vocational education committees have always taken special pride in caring for the disadvantaged. That is recognised everywhere in the educational sector. The system caters for the less advantaged. Down through the years persons who did not get the opportunity to get second level education anywhere else turned to the vocational education committees and they came up trumps for them. For that they have to be complimented.

I take exception to the implied suggestion that I, as a vocational teacher, was appointed through some political influence or pressure. I was employed by a vocational education committee when the Fine Gael and Labour had control of that committee. I could never say that any political bias was used against me or against any of my colleagues. That Bill has done a great disservice to local democracy and particularly to the members of Fine Gael, many of whom have made outstanding contributions to vocational education by serving on vocational education committees. Because there is public accountability, the vocational education committee system is fair game to any would-be knockers whose accusations are groundless. When was the appointment of a secondary teacher questioned? There is no public scrutiny of any kind in secondary schools. Everything is done behind closed doors, as Senator Murphy has said. Who decides what teacher is appointed? I do not know but I would like if the people across the floor of the House would tell me. Who decides what teachers are appointed in the secondary schools? Why pick out a particular sector where there is public accountability, where everything is up front, out in the open and where local democracy operates? I take grave exception to that.

In relation to the announcement of the Minister last week in the debate about education, I take great pride in the fact that at a special conference in Jury's Hotel last Saturday the Irish Vocational Education Association discussed a document, A Blueprint for the Future in relation to the development of education. We are first in the field in relation to this development and the structures of local education authorities. I hope that education will be developed into the nineties and the next millennium.

I welcome the opportunity to say those few words. I welcome the announcement of the Minister of the proposed discussions on the Green Paper on education resulting in a White Paper in 1992. I hope that as a result of that, all interests will come up trumps and show exactly where accountability is, the one sector that has public accountability, that has done a tremendous job for the country and for the less advantaged should be due recognition. Individuals should not knock it at every opportunity.

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá áthas orm an deis seo a fháil cur leis an méid atá ráite ag mo chomhleacaithe ar an taobh seo faoi chúrsaí oideachais. Ag éisteacht leis na Seanadóirí a labhair anseo anocht agus an oíche cheana, cuirim ceist orm féin an mbainim leis an chuid seo den saol beag nó mór, nó an gcónaím in áit ar a dtugtar Gaeltacht nach bhfuil aon bhaint aici le cúrsaí oideachais atá á bplé anseo anois agus le tamall anuas.

Bhíodh caint uair amhain i leith cúrsaí oideachais go rabhthas ag iarraidh go dtiocfadh Santa Claus isteach chun cabhair a thabhairt. Is féidir liom a dhearbhú don Teach nach bhfuil aon Santa ag tabhairt chúnaimh do chúrsaí oideachais sa Ghaeltacht agus nach raibh sé riamh ann. Le blianta fada anuas bhí an Ghaeltacht ag plé leis an Roinn Oideachais agus mar gheall ar an stádas atá ag an nGaeltacht ó thaobh na teanga de, bhí siad ag iarraidh ar an Rialtas go mbainfeadh eisceachtúlacht le ceist oideachais sa Ghaeltacht, mar gurb í an Ghaeilge an chéad teanga a bhí acu uilig ansin, agus gurb í an chéad teanga a bhí acu sa chuid eile den tír ná an Béarla, agus go raibh an Ghaeilge ar a dtoil ag cuid mhaith acu siúd freisin.

Labhair an Seanadóir Costello faoin churaclam nua. Múinteoir bunscoile a bhí ionamsa chomh maith, agus sa bhliain 1969 nuair a tugadh isteach an curaclam nua bunscoile ní raibh réiteach dá laghad déanta ag an Roinn Oideachais ag an am le go bhféadfaí a leithéid a sholáthar don Ghaeltacht. Ní raibh socrú ar bith ann oiread agus téacsleabhar amháin a chur ar fáil. Tháinig cuid againn in iarthar na tíre le chéile agus cheannaíomar sean Gestetner. Thosnaíomar ag athrú leabhair i nGaeilge agus iad a chóipeáil agus a chur ar fáil do scoláirí na Gaeltachta. Tharla sé sin breis agus scór bliain ó shin. Nach aisteach an rud é, tar éis an méid ama atá imithe agus tar éis an curaclam nua a bheith ann — ní churaclam nua níos mó é — níl aon athrú bhunúsach tagtha ar cheist téascleabhair na Gaeilge. Mar sin tá an gasúr Gaeltachta agus na scoileanna Gaeltachta fágtha gan téacsleabhair Ghaeilge agus Ghaeltachta.

Le taispeáint cé chomh dáiríre is atá an Rialtas faoin cheist seo, caithfear a rá nach bhfuil aon tsuim ag an Roinn Oideachais i dtéacsanna. Níl pingin rua acu le caitheamh. Bhí go leor Seanadóirí romham ag caint faoi chearta oideachasúla. An bhfuil a fhios ag an Teach cé as a dtagann an cúpla pingin suarach a chaitear chuile bhliain ar théacsanna i nGaeilge do scoláirí na Gaeltachta agus do scoileanna atá ag múineadh trí Ghaeilge sa chuid eile den tír? Tagann sé ón chrannchur náisiúnta. Pé scéal é, bhí an Roinn Oideachais ag taispeáint go raibh freagracht éigin orthu, ach anois níl aon phingin fanta sa Roinn le haghaidh téacsanna Gaeilge.

An bhliain seo caite tugadh £450,000 don obair sin, agus táimid ag braith go huile agus go hiomlán ar an gcrannchur náisiúnta. Bhí tráth ann nuair a bhí meas ag an Roinn ar an nGaeilge agus ar an nGaeltacht agus suim acu i scoláirí a chur siar chun na Gaeltachtaí leis an Ghaeilge a fhoghlaim. Feicim arís nach bhfuil aon phingin fanta ag an Roinn le caitheamh ar mhúineadh na Gaeilge. Táimid ag maireachtáil ó bhliain go chéile ag braith ar dhea-mhéin mhuintir na hÉireann, a bpinginí a chaitheamh sa chrannchur náisiúnta chun airgead a sholáthar do mhúineadh na Gaeilge, sna Gaeltachta

Is léir do chuile dhuine go bhfuil droim láimhe tugtha ag an Roinn Oideacha agus ag an Rialtas don cheist seo agus nach mbeidh airgead ag teacht níos mó di ach i bhfoirm íocaíochtaí ón gcrannchur náisiúnta. Is cuma leis an Rialtas faoi mhúineadh na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltact agus sa Ghalltacht. Déanadh tagairt anseo d'easpa leabharlanna agus rudaí eile. Tá rudaí i bhfad níos measa san iarthar, maidir le cúrsaí taisteal scoile. Fágtar iad taobh amuigh de na scoileanna agus iad feannta, fuar fliuch. I gCloch na Rón, cur i gcás, ní foláir do mhinibus amháin ceithre aistear a dhéanamh chu gasúir a thabhairt abhaile. D'impigh m ar an Aire Stáit sa Teach seo anuraidh minibus eile a chur ar fáil do mhuintir na n-oileán a bhí ag freastal ar an gCeathr Rua. Dúirt sé nach bhféadfaí é seo dhéanamh agus go raibh an córas a bl acu a chomh maith le haon chóras eile s tír. Tá áthas orm gur athraigh sé a intin i mbliana agus gur ghéill sé dom. Is mait liom an duine atá in ann a intinn a athr anois agus arís. Tháinig sé ar an athr intinne de thoradh brú mór a chuir cui againn air, cé gur dhearbhaigh sé anuraidh go raibh an córas sách maith.

Is é mo phríomh phointe ná go bhfu an Ghaeltacht fágtha ar an ngannchuid Tá gá le breis airgid a chur ar fáil do réamhscoileanna nó naíonraí atá fíorthábhachtach do mhúineadh na teang sa Ghaeltacht; ní mór cúrsaí oiliúna a sholáthar do lucht eagraithe na naíonra seo. Murach an méid beag airgid a chuir eann Údarás na Gaeltachta ar fáil, n bheadh aon airgead ag teacht chuig naíonraí na Gaeltachta. Níl an Roinn Oideachais ag comhlíonadh a ndualgai sa mhéid sin.

Foirgnimh bheaga atá in úsáid d'fhor mhór na mbunscoileanna sa Ghaeltach agus cuireann sé sin lancais ar a leithéid de scoileanna, maidir le soláthar ón Roinn Oideachais. Roinntear an t-airg ead Stáit ar líon iomlán na ndaltaí a fhág ann nach mbíonn ach méid beag airgid ag dul do scoileanna beaga. Cruthaítear deacrachtaí, dá réir, maidir le solátha múinteoirí, agus go háirithe i gcás soláthar múinteoirí tacaíochta.

Ní mór teangmháil tuisceanach a chothú idir an teaghlach agus an scoil chun forbairt iomlán an pháiste a chur chun cinn agus le go mbeadh toradh fónta leis an pholasaí teanga.

Tá athruithe á ndéanamh sa churaclam nua. Tá sé ag éirí níos baintí le timpeallacht an dalta agus measaim gur rud maith é sin. Dá ndéanfadh an Roinn Oideachais athbhreithniú macánta ar a bhfuil á dhéanamh acu ar son oideachais sa Ghaeltacht, d'fheicfeadh siad go bhfuil an-chuid rudaí ag tarlú nach bhfuil inchosanta de réir nósanna maithe oideachais.

Téann daltaí meánscoile na Gaeltachta ar aghaidh go dtí Ollscoil na Gaillimhe. Fuair an ollscoil £1 mhilliún, arís ón gcrannchur náisiúnta, chun árasáin a thógáil d'fhoghlaimeoirí na Gaeilge agus dóibh siúd a bhfuil baint acu leis an nGaeilge. Bheadh sé seo an-inmholta dá mbeadh na príomhfhíricí i gceart. Tá dualgas bunreachtúil ar an ollscoil seo faoi Acht 1928, ábhair a chur ar fáil trí mheán na Gaeilge, ach is eol domsa gur chlis an ollscoil ar an nGaeltacht, agus ar an lear mór Gaeilgeoirí atá lonnaithe sa chathair. Is é an toradh ar an bhfaillí seo ná go bhfuil an Ghaeltacht tar éis éirí cúng, tanaí agus lag. Leathchéad bliain níos déanaí, bronntar £1 mhilliún ar an ollscoil chéanna le foirgnimh a thógáil chun an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn. Muna bhfuil téacsanna oiriúnacha acu sna bunscoileanna, nó áiseanna foghlamtha acu sna meánscoileanna, cén chaoi a bhféadfadh an ollscoil fóir a dhéanamh ar an nGaeilge?

Nílim ag cur an mhilleáin iomlán ar an Rialtas atá faoi láthair ann; níor thug Rialtais a chuaigh rompu an tacaíocht chuí don phobal Gaeilge, ach oiread. Táim ag cur béime air seo anocht mar is beag duine eile a luaigh a thábhacht.

Labhair an tAire an oíche cheana faoi theangacha breise Eorpacha; bhí áthas uirthi go raibh deis ag daoine an Ghearmáinis agus an Fhraincís a fhoghlaim. Tacaím leis sin go hiomlán; a mhéid teangacha a bhíonn ag an duine, is amhlaidh is fearr é. Ach céard faoi teanga ár sinsir? Cén freastal atá á dhéanamh ar labhairt na Gaeilge sa churaclam nua atá á thabhairt isteach sna meánscoileanna? Is tábhachtaí go mór é labhairt na Gaeilge ná scríobh na Gaeilge, dar liomsa agus dar le mórán daoine eile. Bhí deis ag an Aire labhairt na teanga a chur chun tosaigh sa churaclam nua seo, ach measaim nár thapaidh sí an deis.

B'fhéidir gur tuar dóchais í an reachtaíocht oideachais seo atá faoi chaibidil anois. Tá súil agam go dtabharfaimid áird cheart ar an nGaeilge, ar a múineadh, ar mhuintir na Gaeltachta agus ar gach atá ag teastáil chun oideachas forleathan Ghaeltachta a chur ar fáil.

Mr. Norris

I understand there are six minutes remaining. Senator Ross has asked me if we can share that short time so I would like to give him three minutes.

Acting Chairman (Mr. O'Donovan)

Is there agreement on the sharing of the time? Agreed.

Mr. Norris

I am glad to support the motion. I am also glad Senator Ó Foighil spoke about the universities towards the end of his speech. I would like to briefly address this area. It seems to me that there is some inconsistency at Cabinet level because I believe, and I would like the Minister to comment on this, that the Departments of Education and Finance are at odds with some of the other Departments or, at least, the interests of some of the other Departments. I would like to explain what I mean.

I believe that the Department of Education, driven by the Department of Finance, are imposing on the universities a unit cost exercise which is a new method of examining the funding of universities and it is one which universities themselves are particularly concerned about. It takes into account only part of the contribution of the universities national life. It only takes into account, for example, the central teaching function of the university. There is a token recognition of some research value, but not in the widest, general broad sense for which universities in this country are, mercifully, very well known. It does not take into account the full range, or reflect, the interests of Cabinet as a whole because, for example, the Department of Industry and Commerce get considerable assistance from universities in the creation of new jobs, in the development of new technology and so on, sometimes a little outside the normal university status. There are, for example, companies developing on campus in both Trinity College and UCD and this is not really recognised. I believe it should be.

What is the status of the unit cost exercise which is currently being implemented? It does not take into account the output of graduates and the full impact of this in terms of the perception of the country abroad. The reputation of this country internationally is that our educated graduate population is one of our principal assets. I know that the staff in Trinity College, for example, make a special point of meeting visiting industrialists and discussing with them the qualifications of graduates, discussing new ideas, new technology and so on. I know that a recent visit was made by a number of very prominent businessmen from the United States who commented to senior officials at the university on the quality and status of our graduates.

We then look at things like the environmental area where commitments are given over and above those required by the teaching contract. If there were time I could list off the number of people who have been to the forefront of the battle for the environment outside their teaching time. The same is true with regard to health boards, to the Health Research Board which has been under attack financially by the Government, to the Medical Research Board from which the provost of Trinity recently resigned and to the development of new drugs, for example, to fight diseases like leprosy.

I would like to mention also the way in which secondary education feeds into the university system. There is discrimination here, although it is not intentional. Perhaps something could be done about it. For example, in the west the teaching of mathematics and physics in many schools is not taken to honours level in girls schools and this means there is no flow of women into the university faculties of science, mathematics and physics, at least not in the same way that there should be.

With regard to the recognition of degrees in America, I have a constituent who is seriously concerned because the educational evaluators in the United States of America do not understand the Irish academic situation, the marking system or the status of degrees and they refuse to give proper recognition to it. Would the Minister please look into this?

Mr. Ross

I regret that such an important topic was given so little time. It is absurd that on the subject of education we have only one and a half hours debate. There are people queuing to speak and they are restricted to about three or four minutes. It is something we should think about. It is partly our fault for not agreeing to devote a full day to it. I believe a motion on education merits a full day's debate. I want to say a word or two about the teaching profession, where they are abused, neglected and taken for granted and where they were misled by successive Governments.

We have the constant excuse, when a motion of this sort is put down with specific areas in which education and teachers can be helped, that there is not enough money to fund the projects politicians want. I understand, as one who believes in holding back public expenditure, those restrictions on education but I believe — I have said this before but have not had a satisfactory answer — that the privatisation of Irish Life which is to take place early next year will raise hundreds of millions of pounds for the Exchequer. This money could be specifically pigeon-holed into the educational field. It could be put into capital investment which would improve the main problems in education which we hear about so often. We would no longer have this excuse. It could be put into capital investment which would improve the pupil-teacher ratio. It would improve the lot of teachers, many of whom have been misled into going into a profession in which there are no jobs. Many teachers stay at home and are over-educated for a system which can no longer cater for them. The capital is not there to give them the necessary facilities. Some are unemployed and even if they get employment, they find that they have no mobility to move from job to job. Others are forced to take the road of emigration and they go abroad. When they go abroad, what happens? They find that their particular qualifications are not recognised. I know the situation has improved very recently in Britain, but in the EC and in America there are inconsistencies. Many teachers, as a result of the system which we impose on them, are going into jobs for which they are not suited, having been promised jobs in the educational world.

I shall be voting for the Fine Gael motion and against the Fianna Fáil amendment later this evening.

Mrs. Jackman

I will share my time with Senator Raftery if that is agreeable to the House.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Professor Raftery

I agree with much of what Senator Norris said in relation to the third level university sector. He pointed out that the universities have established commercial companies on their campuses. Indeed, the first commercial company established in this country on a campus was in University College, Cork. Additionally, we have the national micro-electronics research centre in Cork which attracts millions of pounds of overseas grants each year for research. We have the centre for co-operative studies. We have the national centre for food bio-technology. All of these contribute in their own way to the national economy. I am afraid the method of unit cost will not take account of that adequately.

My perspective in education is from the third level where I have worked most of my life — from every level in the third level, being an assistant in UCD to vice-president in UCC. As I look at what has happened over that period of nearly 30 years, I ask myself what does the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution treating all our citizens equally mean when you see that students at university are coming from the same socio-economic sectors in society now as they were 30 years ago? Are we treating all our children equally, I have to ask myself when I see the children of the better-off sectors in our society able to afford grinds to get the necessary points to get into university? Are we treating all our children equally? Obviously, we are not. When I see the pressure on young children today starting at national school level in order to get the necessary points to get into university, I wonder are we putting far too much emphasis on university entrance requirements when the vast majority of those at second level will never enter university? There is excessive emphasis on academic subjects, on getting the necessary points to get into university. Are they getting into the right faculties when they get there? There is certainly a lack of career guidance.

Students are now studying subjects that require high points only because they got the high points. If one looks back at the report on university investment in education which came out in the early sixties and looks at where students were in the 1960s, those with the least number of honours in the leaving certificate went into medicine and into veterinary medicine. Today, they are going into medicine and veterinary medicine which require high points only because they get high points. Good mathematicians do not necessarily make good doctors or good vets. They are doing so because there is inadequate career guidance in schools. I can tell you that, as a result of my experience in the administrative side of UCC, many of them end up as tragedies. They find themselves in faculties in which they have no interest. Brilliant students opt out. It is a tragedy. It is a waste of resources and a waste of their lives.

With regard to the pressure on students trying to get into university, the problem is that you cannot fit a gallon into a half gallon size. We have to accept that there are only a certain number of places. Unfortunately this puts the kind of pressure on students that is breaking them physically and mentally. There is something wrong with a system that puts that kind of pressure on young people and robs them of their youth. We must look at the system again. I agree with Senator Ross that there should be more time devoted to a subject as important as this.

Finally, to those people who made such play about all the money, the cost and so on, I accept it is expensive but if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Mrs. Jackman

I hope the Fianna Fáil promise of a day's debate on education will be honoured because Private Members' time is not adequate.

Mr. Mullooly

All Fianna Fáil promises are honoured.

Mrs. Jackman

I am glad to hear it. We can record it this evening. There were many speakers on the Fine Gael side and a number of them could not contribute this evening.

Senator Keogh referred to the fact that this was a long list requiring money. It is not just a question of money. There are glaring problems in education at the moment. Take the six year cycle, which I know Senator Keogh would agree with, and the excellent programmes that can be followed in a six year cycle, whether it is a transition year, senior certificate or the vocational preparation programme; £3 million is as much as it would take to extend the six year cycle to the 50 per cent of students who do not have that facility now. That is a small figure when we are talking in terms of a £1 billion plus budget.

Senator Keogh referred to other aspects which are cost-effective. As regards remedial teaching, when you are talking about disadvantaged pupils who end up illiterate in many cases because they do not get the contact they need on a one-to-one basis with a remedial teacher, I do not think you can ever quantify that cost in relation to money. Senator Keogh referred to flexibility. We should harness the potential and skills of young teachers and offer early retirement to ageing teachers.

Senator McKenna said that parents would reject further taxation. I stated, and will refer to it later, that there is indirect taxation of parents. I gave the figure of £4.7 million in relation to voluntary funding of £25 annually and the figure of £2.45 million collected in exam fees. That surely is indirect taxation. Without those moneys the education system would be lacking in funding. I was interested in the Senator's reference to local education authorities. There was a vocational education committee meeting in Jury's last Saturday. Unfortunately I was not a delegate. It is not so very long ago since Gemma Hussey, as Minister for Education, dared mention local education councils and she was nearly burned at the stake. I brought it up for debate at the vocational education committee and I was told: "shut up, we do not want to hear that". There was no discussion. That was exactly how local education councils which are not very far off local education authorities the IVA have in mind now were dealt with.

Mr. McKenna

Get the facts right.

Mrs. Jackman

The facts are there. I know the Minister has a Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels but I am disappointed she is not here to listen to the passionate pleas from people on this side of this House. I hope that the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, tells her of our concerns.

In opening the debate I congratulated the Minister on her announcement to introduce the comprehensive education Bill and I stated it would open up a much needed debate on education, not just by teachers but others — trade unionists, church authorities, parents, students and employers. In calling for the issuing of both Green and White Papers quickly because the crisis is ongoing, I asked particularly that the proposed education Bill would not become a smokescreen for inactivity. The Minister's speech confirmed my worst fears. We were subjected to a long list of carefully selected data and dates. It was really a smokescreen for her inability to address satisfactorily the glaring problems in education. Why was it necessary to list so many demands? Precisely because of the glaring inequalities that exist within the system. The Minister tried to hoodwink us. When I mentioned that only the report of the primary school curriculum review body was published and urged her to ensure no further delay regarding the publication of the OECD report on the Irish education system and the report of the primary school review, the Minister avoided the question by saying I was accusing her of having the reports published already and that they were gathering dust on shelves. There was no question of that. I said, and I say now, she was not listening.

Again, she sidestepped the issue of the recommendations of the reports and, more importantly, what she intends doing in response to them. The Minister said she was looking forward to receiving the reports. She said that the specific demands set out in the motion before the House as the way to primary education are each in their own way desirable and progressive. I wish Senator Keogh would share that view. The Minister agreed with the demands but she said that they would be amply dealt with in the reports to which she referred. That is procrastination and it can only be further exacerbated by saying that not just the ongoing crisis but other problems and difficulties will be considered in an education Bill.

Another smokescreen was the new programme for economic and social development. That is shelving the issue. The Government recognise the need for further improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. That will be dealt with by way of discussion in the new programme for economic and social development. We were subjected to page after page of what the Minister had accomplished. In the area of the disadvantaged, she referred to the home/school community liaising initiatives, which I agree with, specialist teachers for remedial work and so on. The least any Minister can do is identify schools with the highest priority of need and allocate remedial teachers. We must work on a sliding scale, dealing with areas of greatest need first. What about the thousands of students who do not get remedial help and end up educationally disadvantaged, many in a state of acute illiteracy?

Senator Costello referred to in-service. We are still waiting for the sample paper but we are not going to get it. We are waiting for the in-service course this term but I doubt it will materialise between now and 20 December when the holiday period begins.

In regard to new schools and extensions, the Minister, failed utterly to respond to the statistics about pupils and teachers in prefabs. The Minister mentioned that teachers do not spend their full day in prefabs. She ignored and fudged the issue that students spend their days in them. If they are lucky enough to have specialist rooms they will move once or twice for two periods a day. She ignored the question I asked her about the £300,000 collected from parents for a boys' school in Limerick where when the principal asked the Department for furniture and equipment he was told he could not have it because the building was unauthorised. The Minister did not respond to my call to increase the number of guidance counsellors. Students who come from disadvantaged homes, areas of high unemployment and poor social economic areas are just left high and dry.

I referred to the six year cycle and the Minister fell back on her old excuse: it is a matter for discussion at the negotiations on the new programme for economic and social development. She was selective in the years she took when she spoke about the increase in the capitation grants because nothing was done until 1990 when there was a £10 increase.

The amendment proposed by Senator Mullooly is a brief summary of the educational aims and objectives any Minister for Education would surely have as basic priorities. Take the first one: commending the Minister for keeping educational policy under ongoing review, if the Minister for Education does not keep education policy under ongoing review, I do not know who would. I cannot go through the other items in the amendment because of lack of time but I see no reference to specific future planninng. I hear about reports, Green and White Papers and the proposed education Bill. We will all have an input but the Minister should lead the education debate. She should not hide behind promised reports and the promise of an Education Bill. She should come out and direct education; she should lead the education debate. She should not hide behind promised reports and the promise of an education Bill. I look forward to 1992 as being a year of eventful things which will take place. Hopefully, the legislation promised by the Minister will be one of those events. In the meantime, the problems and difficulties experienced by pupils and teachers alike and, in fact, the ongoing crisis in education as far as I am concerned, have all been left unresolved. I certainly could not support the amendment as put forward by Senator Fallon.

Question put: "That the amendment be made."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 20.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Dardis, John.
• Fallon, Seán.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donovan, Denis A.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hederman, Carmencita.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Raftery, Tom.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, John.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Upton, Pat.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and McKenna; Níl, Senators Ross and Ó Foighil.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the motion, as amended, agreed to?

Senators

No.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Dardis, John.
• Fallon, Seán.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donovan, Denis A.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hederman, Carmencita.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Raftery, Tom.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Upton, Pat.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and McKenna; Níl, Senators Ross and Ó Foighil.

Question declared carried.