We come now to item No. 3. Contributions from the first speaker from each side shall not exceed 15 minutes and the contribution of every other speaker shall not exceed ten minutes.
Education: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move:
That Seanad Éireann —
(1) notes that the Programme for Economic and Social Progress as it relates to education confirms the importance of the education system for the future well-being of the country as well as its role in the country's economic development;
(2) agrees with the overall strategy contained therein to the effect that the opportunity should be provided for all to develop their educational potential to the full;
(3) welcomes the various initiatives referred to in the document for all levels of education and particularly those which are directed at countering educational or social disadvantage;
(4) looks forward to the publication of a Green Paper framed as a strategy paper on education which will afford the opportunity to all parties concerned with education to offer views prior to the publication, in due course, of a White Paper.
I welcome this motion which has been tabled by the Leader of the House. I want to thank him for having given us this opportunity for a wide-ranging debate on education.
The motion also provides us with an opportunity to pay a well-deserved tribute to the Minister for her many achievements since she became Minister for Education in 1987. Indeed, she has been one of the most successful, if not the most successful, Minister for Education since the foundation of the State. Under her stewardship significant progress has been made in every area of the educational service. The Minister has stated on many occasions that her objective as Minister for Education is to fundamentally reform the education system to meet the changed circumstances which pupils and teachers face today.
I believe it is right and proper that this House should acknowledge what has already been accomplished. It is important to put on the record also the fact that this year again the financial allocation for education at £1.416 billion is the second largest financial allocation for any Government Department. It represents over 18 per cent of the net Exchequer expenditure.
The education Bill to which the Minister is committed will be a major milestone in the educational life and history of the country. Everybody with an interest in education is looking forward with great eagerness to the publication later this year of the Green Paper and it is in everybody's interest that there will be the widest possible discussion and public debate on the Green paper when it is issued. I look forward to this House being given an opportunity, as I know it will, to contribute to that debate. The debates on education in the Seanad are always constructive and well informed. There are in this House many Members with a particular interest in this area and I am confident the Minister will take into account the views of Members of this House on the Green Paper when the White Paper is being prepared.
The Programme for Economic and Social Progress as it relates to education confirms the importance of the education system for the future well-being of the country as well as its role in the country's economic development. Enshrined in the programme is the most comprehensive public commitment to education ever on the part of the Government and the social partners. The overall strategy or objective of education policy is stated clearly and simply, that is, to provide the opportunity for all to develop their educational potential to the full and the methods by which this strategy will be achieved are spelled out in clear, unambiguous terms.
A broadly based education will be provided for all ability levels during the compulsory cycle of education, that is, from six to 15 year olds. Pupils will be encouraged and facilitated to continue in fulltime education after the compulsory period. A range of education and training programmes suited to their abilities and aptitudes will be provided. Post-secondary education will be available for all students interested in pursuing such an education and capable of benefiting from it. Efforts will be intensified to address the needs of children with educational difficulties and under-achievers, in particular, during the compulsory cycle.
Second chance education or training will be provided for those leaving the system prematurely. Mature students will be facilitated within the education system in upgrading their education or training levels. Indeed, in all of these areas the Minister has already shown herself to be somewhat of a trail blazer. I shall be referring in more detail to some of the many initiatives already undertaken by her. A vitally important commitment in the programme is that particular attention will be paid to children suffering educational or special disadvantage. The importance of the early identification of such children is recognised. This early identification will be supported by a programme of remedial teaching, guidance and counselling and the development of home-school links.
The programme outlines in detail a number of specific areas for which particular initiatives are proposed. At primary level, overall pupil-teacher ratio will be reduced to 25:1 by September 1992. This will be achieved by retaining all existing posts in 1991 and 1992, and by creating 250 new posts. The additional new posts required to achieve the 25:1 ratio will be created in September 1992. I refute the recent allegations by a certain spokesman on education that these new posts would not be created. The fact is that these new posts will be created in the coming September and in September 1992.
The proposed reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio is very welcome indeed. I believe that a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio is one of the most positive contributions any Minister for Education can make to improving the quality of the education service. The only Ministers for Education who have ever reduced the pupil-teacher ratio in this country have been Fianna Fáil Ministers for Education. It is my earnest hope — and I am sure the earnest hope of all teachers — that this initiative is only the start of a phased process that will continue until the end of this decade. I welcome the agreement which is referred to in the programme that the matter will be further reviewed at the end of 1993.
I believe there is no primary school anywhere in the country in which there is not at least one pupil who could be said to be educationally or socially disadvantaged to some degree. I do not need to tell the Minister how important individual attention is in the case of such pupils. It is true to say that a certain amount of individual attention is important as far as every pupil is concerned, if such were possible. My own view is that the ideal classroom situation, as far as teacher and pupils are concerned, is one which is a combination of class contact, group contact and one-to-one contact.
Class size is the factor which determines the extent or the degree to which this is possible. If a class is too large, no matter how dedicated the teacher, individual attention is not feasible, irrespective of how beneficial it would be in the case of a particular pupil. This is why all teachers feel so strongly about the question of large classes and why in the past there was so much frustration among teachers which led to the stress that has been referred to on so many occasions as far as teachers are concerned. That is why I believe that nothing would boost the morale of teachers more than to know that full advantage will be taken of the demographic situation which will obtain over the remaining years of this century to achieve a significant across-the-board reduction in class size. There is a related matter to which I would like to refer very briefly and which, I believe, will have to be addressed. That is the almost impossible situation that obtains for teachers in one-teacher schools, but particularly in one-teacher schools where the enrolment is in the region of 20 pupils or more. I do not know how many such schools there are, but I believe there are quite a few. However, I know the Minister will have no difficulty in guessing the one which is uppermost in my mind.
The policy at the moment is that where the parents of an area wish to retain a school which is in operation the Department will continue to recognise and fund that school until the enrolment falls to somewhere in the region of eight. I agree with this policy. I do not need to elaborate on the difficulties which confront a teacher in any one-teacher school, and particularly in a one-teacher school with an enrolment of over 20 pupils. The teacher has to implement the curriculum with six classes and pupils ranging in age from four to 13 years of age. There are pupils to be prepared for First Communion and Confirmation. There are pupils with learning difficulties and various other problems. I know the Minister understands and recognises the difficulties involved. I believe all such schools should be designated as disadvantaged and some special staffing arrangement should be worked out in these cases.
There are various options which could be examined or considered. Perhaps the Minister would consider including a reference to this matter in the forthcoming Green Paper. Time will not permit me to deal in detail with all the other initiatives which are outlined in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress but I want to refer briefly to some of them.
I have already referred to the reduction of the pupil/teacher ratio in primary schools. This matter is also being addressed at second level. A pupil/teacher ratio of 19:1 for recruitment purposes will be phased in over 1991 and 1992. This will mean that an additional 500 posts will be provided in these two years. In addition, a further 60 posts will be allocated to post-primary schools in disadvantaged areas for the 1991-92 school year. There is also provision in the programme for the recognition on an ex-quota basis of vice-principals and whole-time posts for guidance in certain categories of second level schools. A six-year cycle of post-primary education will be introduced for all pupils commencing their post-primary cycle in September next. This is something that Members from all sides of this House gave a very high priority to in the debate we had here on education late last year.
The question of the in-service training needs of teachers was also referred to at great length in that debate. This matter is also being addressed in the programme. An additional £0.5 million will be allocated for this purpose in 1992. This figure will be increased to £1 million in 1993 and in subsequent years. In addition to disadvantage, I want to reiterate a point that I have made on a number of occasions. That is, that nobody has done more than the present Minister to deal with the problem of disadvantage at every level, but particularly at primary level, which is the sector I know best. Last year 100 extra teachers were allocated to schools serving disadvantaged pupils. The special fund for disadvantaged schools was substantially increased. New criteria were agreed for assessing the degree of disadvantage in primary schools. The home school liaison scheme came into operation. The number of remedial posts in primary schools was increased by a further 30. The grant to primary schools under the free book scheme was increased by a further 20 per cent, having been increased by 17 per cent the previous year.
The Programme for Economic and Social Progress provides for a further allocation this year of £1 million in addition to the current provision for the various areas of disadvantage in the educational system. This additional allocation will increase to £2 million in 1992, and £3 million in 1993. I had also intended to refer to the free book scheme in primary schools and to the fact that the children in infant classes will be able to benefit from this scheme for the first time. I had also intended to refer to the scheme in second level schools.
I just want to say, in conclusion, that there is now a firm commitment to the implementation of a programme early in 1992 to upgrade or replace all substandard buildings at primary and second level and at EC third level colleges. I welcome this. Already, outstanding work has been done by the Minister over the four years since 1987. The outstanding school building problems will, therefore, be addressed over the next five years, and the problems will be eliminated.
In conclusion, I want to repeat what I said at the outset — that no Minister for Education in the history of this State has made a greater contribution to the education service and the education life of the country than the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke. Education is now, without question, at the centre of the stage. It is of crucial importance to the future well-being and development of the country. It is fully recognised and acknowledged. I believe that future generations will owe her a great debt of gratitude.
I am happy to welcome the Minister to this discussion on education. This subject is being discussed for the second time in the last few months. I thank Senator Fallon who, true to his word, gave us the opportunity. On the Order of Business today, many Senators expressed interest in having the debate extended. I do not know what the situation is regarding that. I would like to know whether the Leader of the House has asked the Minister if this debate could be extended to another time.
Does the Senator mean this evening?
That it would be open-ended this evening, but extended to another time.
The Leader of the House did mention it informally to me. Obviously, the Order of Business is arranged until 4 p.m. today so that would not be allowable. Two of us are standing. Is that in order?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Sorry, Minister, I took it that Senator Jackman sat down when I called you.
Senator Fallon did say it to me informally. I accept that your order of the House is arranged for today. I would be glad if I was free to come on another occasion. I knew about this date and was able to earmark myself for it, and on whatever other date is arranged, on another day or week, I might not be available.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That will be a matter for the Whips.
I would like to put on record the intensity of interest by people who wished to contribute. It shows that education is a very important subject for discussion, and will be over the next number of months.
Looking at the motion I noticed as I went through the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, that it is taken word for word from items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the programme. I would have to say that the motions, as formulated — and I take them as four separate sections — reflect the usual confusion in Government thinking. For example, there is a confusion of principle, strategy, tactics and action. Item No. 1 states that the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, as it relates to education, confirms the importance of the educational system for the future well-being of the country as well as its role in the country's economic development. It is a statement of principle to which we all prescribe, but confirming something as being important without the corollary of a well-formulated strategy, opposite choice of tactics and leading to real action, is not what I would have wanted. What I have seen here is an exercise in the dissemination of platitudinous pap. I really feel that it is in no way impinging on the real world. While agreeing with the overall strategy contained in item No. 2, to the effect that opportunity should be provided for all to develop their educational potential to the full — I think here lies the weakness, emptiness and hollowness of this motion.
The Senator's union agreed 94 per cent with those very words.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have to ask the Minister to allow Senator Jackman continue.
I am trying to show that when we go through and breakdown in the actual programme——
That is what your union agreed with — both the formulation of those headings and the breakdown.
They are generalised statements. My record in the House shows that I have a practical approach to everything. What I am saying is that a strategy represents a coherent thoughtout, well-articulated and formulated mechanism for achieving predetermined goals. As far as I am concerned, Programme for Economic and Social Progress includes no such strategy, and to call the items in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress a strategy is to fracture the use of language beyond credibility.
What in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress will enable all pupils to develop their educational potential to the full? If it would facilitate such advance, the strategy should make commitments on resources. I am talking about specific commitments on resources, curriculum, pastoral care, special education in a meaningful way, proper career guidance and real improvement in pupil/teacher ratio. What has the strategy got to say specifically about the public capital programme in respect of education? What commitment is there to refurbishing existing stock? What commitment is there to building new schools and to new facilities within schools? If that strategy were there, I would be quite happy to endorse it.
Going on to number 3, in its terminology it gives the game away. We are asked to welcome the various initiatives. Looking up the meaning of the word "initiatives" we find that to "initiate" means to start, to set in motion, to begin, to perform the first act or right. Wherein lies the strategy? What has been set in motion? What consolation can the students, parents and teachers take from this first step or series of first steps? I am asking, to coin a phrase, where is the beef? The Programme for Economic and Social Progress is supposed to improve the lot of those who go to schools and to units for the disadvantaged. This is to be welcomed, but we need to analyse this in greater detail.
All the evidence suggests that this type of reasoning must be accompanied by appropriate curricular changes: pastoral care in schools, pastoral care systems, psychological support systems and home school liaison. I will agree that the Minister has the home school liaison in place. It is working exceptionally well. It is something that should be extended. One particular category is almost totally ignored — the emotionally disturbed. There is a substantial increase in numbers but there are no increases in resources.
To take Limerick as an example, there is no unit for emotionally disturbed students in the mid-west despite the fact that the survey conducted by the MidWestern Health Board/University of Limerick showed evidence of enormous problems. I am asking what initiative is being taken in respect of these. I am talking specifically about emotionally disturbed children. We are very much aware of the breakdown of society, marital break-up, disadvantage and social problems, and even though those children are not specific to any particular class, there are emotionally disturbed children and they are not being catered for.
I was interested to hear the Government speaker referring to the Education Act. A Green Paper is not, and has never been, a strategy paper. It is an options paper. It is a consultative document. The White Paper is the strategy or policy paper. I am worried about the verbiage and the procedural confusion there which is perhaps covering the fact that the Minister — and I would like a commitment from her regarding the Education Bill — may be getting cold feet. There is no reference in this motion, after the publication of a White paper, to the Education Act.
It is in the document. Read your book.
I have read the book, but I wondered why it did not transfer to the——
We could have put four pages from the book on to the Order Paper but it would not fit.
I have considered it.
The Senator is in a spot and may as well admit it.
The exact lines on page 33 are taken out, as in the motion. It says that a Green Paper, framed as a strategy paper in education, will be issued by summer 1991 and will afford the opportunity to all parties to offer views. Then it goes on to say that it will be followed by a White Paper in early 1992 setting out the Government's policy, and that will be followed by an education Act. I think it is quite in order for me to wonder why the last little bit, seeing that it was taken word for word from PESP, did not come in to say "followed by an Education Act". That is the big question which people are asking. Will the Minister have the courage to actually take on an education Act?
The Senator's sector had the courage.
I would like the Minister to clear up once and for all the issue raised by Deputy Higgins in the Dáil, the pupil-teacher ratio and the jobs to be created. The creation of 250 new posts is a prerequisite to the pupil/teacher ratio at the 25:1 level in September 1992. My understanding is that there are 323 vacancies on the panel at the moment and that the Department's first priority is to fill those posts. Will the 250 new jobs be created by September 1991?
They are already created. The circular went out in March.
In addition to the numbers on the panel? Where will the jobs be? It is interesting that the newly qualified primary teachers coming out of our colleges total 250. Will the jobs be there for them? I would refer again to specific figures regarding our class sizes which, I think, have been bandied around quite a bit. The classes are the largest in Europe. We have 602 primary school classes with 40 students; we have 1,799 classes with between 20 and 24 students. We have over 3,000 classes of between 25 and 29 pupils; we have over 5,500 classes of between 30 and 34 pupils, and nearly 5,000 classes of between 35 and 39 pupils. It is impossible for teachers to cope with class sizes of over 30 pupils. There are 11,000 teachers having daily classes of over 30 pupils. That surely contradicts the commitment given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in relation to reduction of pupil/teacher ratios. I will not go into the figures because time does not permit me, but Italy has a ratio of 15.2:1; France 22.4:1; United Kingdom 22.1:1.
Moving briefly to the post-primary sector, certainly the improvement the Minister has in mind in the PESP of 19:1 will help, but it will help the larger schools, not the smaller schools. In a typical school in Limerick there are 600 pupils and 32 teachers. A similar grammar type school on the border in Scotland, in a town in Berwickshire, there are 600 pupils and 80 teachers. These are facts. If 80 teachers are required for 600 pupils in that area, surely 32 in relation to 600——
How long is their school year? There are other things attaching to service regardless of the PTR; there are other matters.
We are in Europe, and we have 600 pupils to 32 teachers as opposed to 600 pupils and 80 teachers. I will move on very quickly to career guidance counsellors. I spoke on that subject on the previous occasion the Minister was here. Counselling is essential. What is happening now is that there are overstretched counsellors having to concentrate on career guidance. Counselling by its very nature, is a one-to-one situation. Even the 0.5 of a wholetime post for guidance in schools, whether secondary, community or comprehensive, is for the 350 to 499 pupils. I welcome even that from the Minister.
I am not saying that everything is bleak. I am saying that we welcome all improvements, but really we have to go much further. I welcome the six-year cycle.
As regards in-service, I would really want to know about it. It states in PESP that there is a study on the in-service needs and the resources that will be necessary to put them in place. A figure of £0.5 million is mentioned for 1992 and £1 million in 1993. I would agree with the Minister that pupil assessment is an advantage to pupils, but I would particularly like her to home in on management of schools. We know if authority is devolved to local management structures that parents, teachers and management alike will have to be subjected to intense in-service training if they are to take over, as they are doing, from religious orders. Even the religious orders themselves need that training. This is very important.
I would like to know the Minister's policy as regards rationalisation. I understand that it is essential. I know that there is a social problem in small towns where losing a school, obviously, is the equivalent of losing a factory as far as shopkeepers are concerned. The situation is that you have funding already promised, committed, for replacement of sub-standard buildings at the three levels by 1997. If there is a crisis in building, as happened in the Newtown Forbes case, you will find moneys having to be put immediately into situations where you have a pressing problem.
There are £24 million pounds allocated over the period of years in Programme for Economic and Social Progress, but I am asking what happens if there is a crisis, because the whole programme will fall into disarray. There is a queue waiting for money. I think it is an inadequate response because it will take at least five to ten years to clear the backlog. There is tremendous impetus for rationalisation at the moment and communities that have been riven and have had tremendous problems in trying to come together on the school of their choice — as the Minister knows it has taken tremendous skill, diplomacy and talking and so on, to get to an agreement on the school of their choice — are now waiting in expectation.
This new state of the art school with a great range of programmes for meeting the needs of all kinds of pupils is hypothetical because I believe we are going to be into the next decade. We are going to have queues of disillusioned and disgruntled parents who have worked hard to resolve a problem in their communities in regard to rationalisation. I would say to them that I think rationalisation has to take its place in the queue and aim for the 21st century.
I accept the Minister's statement that the unions have agreed on the Programme for Economic and Social Progress programme but the reality is that parents, teachers and the students themselves are not benefiting on the ground. The most severely disadvantaged — I will refer to this again when I refer to my own area — are those with no class for emotionally disturbed children. I could go on at length and I think the Minister realises now that we could talk for ever on this issue. I have not even mentioned third level and the difficulty of access to third level. That would be a debate for another day.
Tá áthas orm seans a bheith againn an t-ábhar seo agus an méid atá déanta ag an Aire i rith na blianta atá thart a phlé. Tá an-dul chun cinn déanta i ngach cuid den Roinn — bunscoileanna, meán scoileanna agus an triú leibhéal. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil sé ar intinn ag an Aire leanúint leis an bhfeabhsú sin sna blianta atá romhainn.
I will comment briefly on Senator Jackman's contribution. I do not believe I have heard, during my time in the Seanad, such a negative attitude and such a negative contribution in any debate.
A realistic contribution.
What she has said about the Programme for Economic and Social Progress is an indictment of her own union and the commitment and contribution all the social partners have made in relation to this programme. If Senator Jackman has doubts about this matter, who do the social partners represent? What is their make-up? Do they not represent all the unions and all the people who are involved both in education and in every other sphere of activity?
I am worried about the implementation of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
On a point of order, would it be in order to point out to Senator McKenna that Senator Jackman is not speaking on behalf of her union but is speaking in her role as a representative of a political party?
An Leas-Chathaoirlech
That is not a point of order.
I want to thank Senator O'Reilly for his very valued information, but at the same time it does not take from the fact that Senator Jackman is a member of a particular union whose——
On a point of order——
Senator Jackman thinks that the implementation of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress is a very different matter from the writing of a document.
The point of order is that Senator McKenna should address the Chair, not Senator Jackman.
I want to thank Senator Costello for his very valued contribution, but anything I have said has been said through you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, and I know that you are qualified enough and have experience enough to counsel me if I am not speaking through you.
We are here to debate a very important issue and we have to recognise the fact that whether people like it or not a tremendous amount of development and activity has taken place in the educational sector when times were difficult and money was scarce. However, the Minister for Education has, in no small way, ensured the success and development of the whole educational system. We have to recognise that and I believe that all Senators on every side of the House, if they were honest, would know that.
What amuses me about the attitude in relation to things that are and are not done is that I am hearing very negative contributions from individuals who are members of local authorities. We had a situation here in the House some weeks ago when people cried from the rooftops about local democracy being taken away and that the first part of the Local Government Bill was going to take powers from local authorities. We had this from a party who in actual fact have done nothing over the last number of years except to try in every way possible to take away power from the VEC system of education. I wonder if Senator O'Reilly or Senator Jackman would have any comments to make on that. It is the specific policy of Fine Gael to take the control of the VEC system from the local authorities and from the VECs.
To put parents and teachers on the VECs.
That is the avowed principle of Fine Gael.
To give people power.
And any statements that are made show what is the position. In view of that it ill-behoves those people to stand up here and defy the Minister for Education.
That is untrue.
In the post-primary sector, the new junior cycle programme is now in operation. I would have expected — of course, after listening to what I heard today I will not be surprised at any type of attitude — that that development in relation to the new junior cycle would be welcomed on all sides. It is a very welcome development. Plans are well ahead for the development of the new senior cycle. Surely nobody will object to the fact that we have to bring all those systems into the modern age, or do we want to stay in the middle of the 19th century? However, that is for individual people to make up their own minds about.
The process of the gradual reduction of the PTR in post-primary schools through the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, which Senator Jackman referred to and which will commence next autumn and will continue in 1992, is a very welcome development. Scare-mongering, innuendo and suggestions that these things are not going to happen are very unfair. The Government and the Minister are committed to that development and the reduction on a gradual basis of the pupil-teacher ratio down the road. That has to be welcomed.
There is the additional career guidance provision. In relation to what Senator Jackman said, there will be the introduction of the quota status for vice-principals in the larger schools. The extension of the sixth year school cycle in all post-primary schools is indeed a very welcome development.
In relation to the disadvantaged, the Minister has allocated £1 million this year to redress the various problems; this will be increased to £2 million in 1992 and to £3 million in 1993. Second chance education is also highlighted in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, one example being the very important Youthreach scheme for the young unemployed who have left school without any qualifications or vocational training.
The VTOS provides long term unemployed with the opportunity to return to the educational system and to improve their knowledge and their skills. The allocation for adult literacy in community education schemes was doubled by the Minister last year and is being further increased this year. A programme will begin in 1992 to upgrade and replace all substandard buildings in primary, post primary and VEC colleges by 1997. Again, that is a major commitment and surely no one can say it is not evidence of a Minister who is committed to dealing with the development of the whole educational system.
Senator McKenna has great imagination.
The facts are there, whether Senator O'Reilly likes it or not. It is coming up to a local election. Senators opposite should get the views of their VECs and they will be told categorically by people in Cavan, Monaghan, Limerick and other places exactly what they think of the efforts to disband the VECs.
A very welcome development is the abolition of the accumulation of points in the leaving certificate for entry to third level education.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McKenna has one minute left to conclude. I would ask him to conclude.
The type of discrimination that is taking place in relation to the accumulation of points for the leaving certificate is extremely important in that it discriminates against many young people who cannot afford to go to the centres offering grinds. Some of the fees are in the region of £1,500.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I will have to ask the Senator to conclude.
There is much more I would like to say in complimenting the Minister. There is a commitment by the Minister to produce a Green Paper and a White Paper on education. There are many difficulties in bringing together the different strands——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You have gone over your time, Senator. I must ask you to resume your seat.
I do not think the Department of Education could be in any better hands and I want to compliment the Minister for Education on the magnificent work she has been doing and will continue to do for the betterment of the country
I am delighted we have an opportunity this afternoon to discuss very briefly, alas, attitudes to education. I agree with some of the points made this morning on the Order of Busines. I think it is regrettable that we only have two hours. I do not know whose fault it is but we hope that perhaps there will be an opportunity to discuss at greater length——
On a point of order, there may be a suggestion that it is the Minister's fault. This Minister for Education has always been available, given a little time——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator did not imply it was the Minister's fault.
I just want to clarify the position. This Minister has always been available to come to debates in this House.
Not only did I not imply that but I was just about to go on, if the Senator had waited for me to finish my sentence, to compliment the Minister on the successes she has had in education to date. I regret very much that this debate, which I think is an extremely important one, should descend to a level of wrangling between political parties and that there should be a mention of local elections coming up, etc. That does not become the Members of the Seanad and we should take as constructive an attitude as possible to this motion which is extremely important.
I would like to compliment this Minister for Education and preceding Ministers for Education, be they Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or whatever, — I do not care; it is of no interest to me — on the splendid job that has been done in this country in the area of education. We have a splendid and proud reputation in this country in respect of education. I had the opportunity both this year and when I was Lord Mayor to travel abroad a great deal and I am always proud and heartened by the attitude of other countries with regard to our education system. They hold it in very high esteem and our graduates who go abroad can hold their heads high in the international field.
That is not to say that improvements cannot be made. We should put as much of our financial resources into education as we possibly can. I know we are always looking for extra money to be put into everything but if we put more financial resources into education many other problems would be sorted out. At the lower end of the scale it is perfectly obvious that those who are more disadvantaged cannot get out of the downward spiral of deprivation unless they have at least a decent, basic, good secondary education. If possible, we should encourage as many as possible of our people to go into third level because we know that when they go abroad competition for jobs is very tough and the better educated our emigrants are the better chance they have of employment.
The ten minutes at our disposal does not permit one, and I do not intend to go into any specific detail, but I would like to make a plea to the Minister not to abandon the idea of giving our young people a liberal education. I believe it is extremely important. I think in many quarters the idea of a liberal education where young people study liberal arts, study the humanities, is considered to be slightly outdated but I believe we need to envisage or to try to look forward to the next 20, 30 or 40 years to what sort of a world our young people will be facing. When I say a liberal education or studying the humanities I mean liberating young people, liberating all of us, to be truly human, liberating us from our ignorance. It may be as basic as teaching our young people to read, write, speak, listen, understand and think. We should not lose sight of that.
There is now such an emphasis on points in secondary education that those basic values on which western civilisation has been built have been lost sight of. The great events in western civilisation have been based initially on the study of humanities, on the spirit of inquiry which has led people on to great heights.
If I may, I will paraphrase from the French the following quotation: "The whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds ..." In other words, education is nothing more than arousing the interest or enthusiasm of young people and then satisfying it. That is what we should keep in mind and I think it has been lost sight of. I remember a very interesting study which was carried out by Trinity College some years ago. They looked at the job opportunities for young people leaving university with a particular craft, with a particular skill, whether it was engineering or law or whatever it was, and they initially did better in the job stakes. They got the jobs quicker, they got better pay in their jobs. But they also looked ten years down the road to see what had happened to those young people and, interestingly enough, ten years later those who had had a broader education, who had not concentrated on a specific craft but who had started with a liberal degree, who had studied the humanities out-passed those who had come out with a specific craft.
People should not think that what I am saying is all pie-in-the-sky and very laudable for people who can afford it. It is, I believe, important for young people. There is no point in pumping information into children. They can get that anywhere. They have it 24 hours a day. They have it from the media. We are all vulnerable to information pounded at us from the media. It has now reached a situation in advertising where it is 10 second sound bites. That is apparently all we can now absorb because we are being so harassed and hammered with the information being pumped at us. More and more time is spent communicating less and less. What we want is to give our children knowledge, not information.
I do not want to go into the detailed question, time does not permit, but I would say to the Minister there is going to be an opportunity to have smaller class sizes and we should be looking at the quality of education. I have nothing but praise for the splendid job, by and large, done by our teaching profession. They have a very proud record and I think that the quality of the teachers is what is all-important.
There should be some better system of assessment of teachers and of their ability because this is what is important. We heard a very extended debate on the Gay Byrne show recently about whether a teacher could be dismissed or not for total incompetency. I am not going to go into that, I do not wish to say whether they can or they cannot. The general impression came across that there was certainly room for improvement in that area. Teachers might, in certain instances, welcome appointments for a limited period. They must get worn out like the rest of us, burned out. It is understandable because of the pressures they are under. Some flexibility for them might be a good thing.
What we need is to judge on results and by results I mean not simply on points but on how our young people are prepared to meet life and to meet the sort of life which is undoubtedly ahead of them, when, I believe, above all they will need flexibility. I know that our graduates abroad are snapped up and I know that they are admired in England and in the United States and, indeed, in Europe. Flexibility, it is said, is one of the outstanding traits of Irish graduates. That is something we should try to encourage in our youngsters at secondary level also. We should encourage maturity and balance.
I suggest there is an area we could look at for a better use of the physical resources of schools. Schools are there, the physical resources are there 24 hours a day. How many hours in the day are they used? I will mention an unfortunate example, Iraq, which could not be very popular at the moment. I remember my first visit there many years ago. I was extremely impressed. They had a great need to try to get the women particularly educated in Iraq and they used the schools for 16 hours out of the 24 hours. They had three rotas. They had one lot going from early morning until lunch time, they had another lot going in the afternoon and they had adults going until late at night. That is an area that we could look at.
I would also like to say a word about the value of education, what we have to offer. I think it can be a real boom to our economy. I know that our universities, our medical schools, the college of surgeons, all these institutions are held in very high esteem abroad and the Government should look very seriously and enthusiastically at the opportunity which exists there for selling education abroad. Already, large numbers of foreign students are coming into this country but that is something which could be greatly developed and expanded.
I know our third level education institutions are highly thought of in the Arab world, in the Far East and in most places around the world and there is a great opportunity for us to put these resources to the benefit of some of the less-developed countries and, indeed, to make money for Ireland out of it. I do not see why that should not be done. I am one of those who believe that if they can afford to pay, let them pay.
I would like to welcome the Minister to the Seanad. We should all acknowledge that our educational system is just about one of the best in the world in general, and the curriculum is substantive and relevant in general terms. Education in the last few years, and there were some words of praise for our present Minister and past Ministers, has been productive and progressive in general but I do not want to look at those kinds of comfortable generalities. I want to look outside of those, to a couple of specific areas, because we have to show concern in education. We have to spot the emerging needs, to identify change and we, as legislators have to serve as a catalyst to make sure that that change is brought about. In the context of the discussion on the Education Act, we should look at exceptions to the general rule and see what needs to be done. I know others have tried to do that. I would like to look at some things that are not right yet and at what we have to get right, starting now.
Some Senators heard me speak about this before. I think in particular that pre-schooling is not right. It is not even nearly right. The services are not yet subject either to regulation or registration so we have a situation where we pretend children do not exist until they are four years of age. At four, they can enter our formal school system and we say: "I see you. You exist". Before that, invisible kids. We are not fooling anybody in this regard. We are not fooling the parents of those children who know that the period between birth and four years of age is a time when more learning takes place than in any subsequent period. If the child, when he or she grows up, goes to university, goes to any kind of college, works harder than hard, that child still will not learn more in its first four years at college than he or she learned in the first four formative years of life.
Those first four years are when they lay down the foundations for language, for relationships, for an understanding of their environment and for the capacity to reason. It is when they learn how to learn and yet we really pretend that they do not exist. We are allowing them to fall somewhere between the Department of Health and the Department of Education. We are allowing them to be put into nurseries and baby-minding situations some of which have no proven educational value and a minority of which are positively worrying.
That is bad enough when a toddler or a three year old is from an environment that is rich in words, stimulation and security. It is bad enough in that situation to postpone our educational responsibility for the child, but it is a disaster when the toddlers from an environment where stimulation, security and literacy are all at a very low level. It is a disaster when the toddlers come from a deprived background, where the television serves as an electronic baby sitter. We know, and we should not pretend not to know, that early intervention can remove or lessen problems which otherwise line up for children who come from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. Unfortunately, as yet we are not providing that intervention in any coherent way. We are not acknowledging our responsibility to cherish all of the children equally in this, the single most significant developmental period of their lives.
This is happening because we have a hangover in our thinking that says toddlers and children are there, of course; they require the stimulation and care, education and warmth, of course, but that is the mother's job. That is true. No argument with that, but it is the father's job and it is the job of a nation which recognises that the pattern of work has changed and changed for good. Women are working outside the home and both parents are working. As a nation we have to make sure that our planning takes account of and responds to that by addressing the needs, educational and otherwise, of the first four years of the life of every citizen.
If this country has managed to evade its responsibility to "pre-schoolers" then we have a problem and it is a problem for which there is no voice and no platform. I have made the case, and it is a strong case, that we should have a council for the status of children which would allow us to focus on the needs, potential and rights of children as, indeed, we focused on the needs, potential and rights of women. We have a Council for the Status of Women. That does not mean that all women's problems are going to be solved but it has been a constant presence forcing us to acknowledge the important issues affecting their lives. A council for the status of children or even a commission examining the issues affecting them is something that we badly need, bearing in mind that we have a dangerously complete power over our children and that they have very few ways of fending off that power.
When it comes to primary schools one of the major issues is that life skills must be developed as an integral part of the curriculum. The basic skills of communication and numeracy are already well recognised as essential. The concept of partnership between school, home and community has been underlined by the success of individual projects and which have been recognised as essential. The concept of partnership between school, home and community has been underlined by the success of individual projects and have forged strong links between all three.
I mentioned life skills. I do not think it is something that you learn once and then have for the rest of your life. Times change, and life skills have to change with them. I, like many of my colleagues, was a teacher. I was trained to teach and I had the right skills at the time. But I would not have those skills in the future because problems are emerging for children within our educational system and just were not around when I was teaching. There will be problems in the next few years that are not around now. One of the obvious challenges would be what happens when children with AIDS have to be integrated into our schools. Integration is the key word. We have to try to integrate those children and other disadvantaged children, whether physically disabled or mildly mentally handicapped, into our existing school system.
Some people mentioned the disadvantaged. It is the single most important area for special care and understanding — those children from homes disadvantaged through very low incomes and who are disturbed by family backgrounds. This was brought home to me very forcibly late last year when visiting a school near me. About 37 per cent to 40 per cent of the intake of junior infants came from one parent families who were also suffering great deprivation in a whole variety of areas.
I do not think that is an uncommon experience. When we talk of the partnership between parents, school and community we realise it needs a special approach from our educational system. I know there is work being done in this area, but under the new Education Act a new major countrywide drive to overcome these problems is needed. We cannot create parallel ghettos; and, if our teachers are to cope, there has to be a major re-examination of training procedures and a provision of ongoing inservice training to enable teachers to manage the complexities that now face them.
One of the things we should look at is the unaddressed problem of the transition between primary and secondary schools. Transition has really been appropriated by the latter section of second level schooling. In fact the transition between primary and secondary school is often the factor which makes a success or a failure out of the whole proces of second level schooling. Students make that transition in a kind of obstacle course mode. They do not know what they are trying to prove and have only the most vague expectations. There is no continuity really, not even a report form which would ease the arrival of the student in his/her new school and ease the introduction to a new teacher.
We have to work harder to achieve holistic education, education that looks at the whole person in their context rather than regarding each individual as a hot potato to be dumped from hand to hand and forgotten. If our educational system is to look at the whole person in their context then, of course, we have to reexamine the leaving certificate programme and do it quite quickly. It is predominantly academic, which means that it is unsuited to the needs or abilities of those who are not academic by inclination. It does not address the whole area of life skills.
I would like to see the option of a two-year uniform curriculum with common core subjects. That means that the students would gain a senior certificate at that stage. After that they could follow a post certificate cycle where specialisation would be carried out. That could be either vocational or directed at entry to third level education. I do not think curriculum reform should be unduly influenced by the requirements for a third level education. The school leaving age could be extended so that all students acquire a senior certificate. The best elements of the present leaving certificate programme, which consists of the ideals of a liberal education, should be drawn on in addition to the senior certificate programme and the vocational preparation and training programmes. Those two are marginalised because of the perception of their lower status. That is an error. I think an integrated programme could eliminate that type of difficulty. Programmes should include learning how to learn, how to solve problems and to integrate learning and doing. That offers everybody a basis of preparation for living an adult life. It focuses on enterprise, which we need so badly, and on teamwork, where initiative and creativity in work situations are valued.
I agree with many people that our young people are becoming part of what I term a commodities market called the point system. If we were to examine how our teenagers are covered by some of our better newspapers at the moment we would find that the overwhelming bias is to interpret them through these points. The acres of coverage given to points is part of a vicious circle which is narrowing rather than widening the options for young people. It represents a supply and demand theory, where the price of entry to popular or sought after courses are points. We need a balance between the points system and the assessment of suitability for various courses.
I know that third level colleges, universities, institutions and RTCs provide a wide range of courses from certificate to degree level. Many people advance the argument that certificate courses could be run in tandem with post leaving certificate courses, particularly those that are of a vocational nature. Even within the present system those colleges which provide certificate courses have a higher retention rate of students to leaving certificate. Of course, the knock-on effect of that would be that there would be increased capacity within third level colleges for courses leading to diploma or degree.
One of the great truisms of education is that it is a lifelong thing. We all feel comfortable saying that. Unfortunately, to a great extent it is a lie here or a fairly diluted truth. Other countries like France take it very seriously. They talk about the third age and they actively encourage retired people to go back to college and get the degree they have always wanted or study a discipline that is new to them. It creates a different atmosphere in universities. It extends the active and happy life of older people. It prevents the stereotyping of older people by young people and vice versa. It is time the Department of Education provided an imaginative, positive initiative to put a bit of life into our constant claims to regard education as a lifelong process and in our claims to value our older citizens.
I welcome the proposed Education Bill. I am glad we have the opportunity to put forward some of our ideas here on education today and I look forward to contributing to the debate in the future. I thank the Minister for being so cooperative and so willing to listen to the debate.
I would like to start by thanking the Minister for agreeing to come along for this debate. I understand that she is more than agreeable that we might have a quarterly or fairly regular debate on education in this House. I would like to see it established on a basis whereby we could expect that we would have the Minister in the House for such a debate. I would certainly like to thank the Minister for facilitating us in that matter.
Secondly, I congratulate the Minister for the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the matters contained in it in relation to education. I am not always that generous with praise in this House, but where it is due we should not skimp on it. Certainly there are very many good elements in relation to education in that document. Therefore, I will not be opposing the motion before us.
What is in the document on education is very much a milestone in terms of the progress that has been made in educational development. We were experiencing a very long period of educational cutbacks and at least now we have stopped that and are now hopefully in the process of eliminating the worst of the excesses in terms of cutbacks over the last number of years and beginning to build on the strengths of our educational system, and they are many.
We have had an educational system run on a shoestring. Indeed, Senator Keogh referred to an area which is not even covered in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress— the whole question of pre-schooling. We do not make State provision for that area and there is no mention of it in the programme. It is unfortunate. That is part of the reason our primary school begins as early as it does, at the age of four. Nevertheless, it is an undoubted fact that a tremendous amount of development takes place in the young child at an age prior to that and it is a matter that we must address in the future.
I mention in passing that we were discussing yesterday the whole issue of educational exchange. I suggested yesterday that that is a matter in which the Minister's Department should have a considerable say. I could not see why it was relegated solely to the Department of Foreign Affairs. It refers to matters such as research, studies, student transfer and exchange and teacher exchange. I would have liked to have seen some formal representation on the commission of the teaching profession to ensure that their professional expertise was used when students or teachers were being selected for the exchange programme.
In relation to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, we will be seeking to ensure that the commitments made are honoured in the future and that we build on them. We must remember that this is not by any means the be-all and end-all of educational development; it is the beginning of a positive development in a broad sphere of areas of education. I want to ensure that they are met and, hopefully, that they are improved. A pupil-teacher ratio of 19 : 1, which is all that will be there when the programme is over, is still not a great pupil-teacher ratio; half a career guidance teacher is not a great number either. There are many matters where we would like to see development in the years to come as well as honouring the existing commitments.
The question of in-service training is one of the major areas. It is referred to in the programme and there is funding made available in the programme for it. I do not think the programme is adequate enough to deal with the requirements of a comprehensive in-service training structure, which obviously we need in this country. At present we are spending approximately £1 million between the primary and post-primary sector on in-service training. That is much less than 0.1 per cent of our annual educational budget. When you consider that we spend 85 per cent of our annual educational budget on teachers' salaries and when you have that high level of labour intensive activity, it is very important to ensure that the full professional potential of those teachers is tapped. That is why you cannot separate in-service training from education. Less than 0.1 per cent of our total educational budget going on in-service continuous training, professional development, personal development is not good enough. We need a full-scale structure. We need a structure whereby in-service training is available on a national basis throughout the country so that all teachers are able to avail of it. We have various ad hoc courses, summer courses, we have had the day courses for the junior certificate but we have to provide a service that is accessible to all and to do that we must put the structure in place.
I would envisage that the ideal structure needed at local level is the teacher centres that are in existence at present on a temporary basis and staffed by people who are on a part-time basis. They are short of funding all the time. They get a certain contribution — I think it was £181,000 last year — from the Minister's Department, but that is very little to operate on. What we need is a full-scale structure. We need a full-time director as they have, for example, in Drumcondra. We need a secretariat. This is the system that is operating in Northern Ireland. I believe that, whatever structure we put in place, this should be the unit of delivery in relation to in-service training. To do that we have £500,000 for 1992 from the progamme and £1 million for 1993. To my mind, that is less than useless to deliver a meaningful in-service training structure. That is an area I would like to see addressed. The money that is there is fine in the context of what we have at present in relation to in-service training, but not in the context of what we need and with what we must have to bring us into line with European countries.
In relation to the sixth year cycle, I am obviously delighted the Minister has made that part and parcel of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. It is a worthwhile development. It is belated, we have been looking for it for a long time, but at least it is there. What remains now is to ensure that the sixth year cycle is properly integrated into our post-primary system, that we are able to avail of it and get the maximum out of it. To do that we must ensure that the funding and the personnel are in place.
Of course, the programme does not refer to that in terms of how the Minister is going to resource the sixth year cycle. It makes provision for the sixth year cycle, but obviously it will require certain resourcing and staffing levels. I think it will require a lot of development to ensure that it operates at a good level. For example, we discussed the last day the transition year option. The transition year option to my mind has always operated on an ad hoc basis. It has been more or less thrown in for teachers to take up, the guidelines have been given, but the resources have not been put in place. Neither has the curricular side of it been developed in what we would regard as normal curriculum development — for example, the way we approach the junior certificate and the senior cycle, with course committees, with full-scale examination of curricular needs and developments. It is left to the individual school to put forward their portfolio and it is left to the co-ordinator to deal with it and to bring what numbers of staff they can get who are willing to participate. Even though it will require extra work from them, they do not get extra pay for it and they do not get extra resources. That is not the way to operate. I think it is an excellent option, but in terms of how it is catered for at present it leaves a lot to be desired. That must be looked at very carefully.
I understand we have some 122 or 124 schools at present engaged in that programme; but they are doing it bravely from their own resources and using their own personnel, who are getting nothing extra for it in any sense — and by "any sense" I mean from the Department of Education. It will be a development that will be part and parcel of the three year cycle at post-primary level. This is the time to examine it and to ensure that it is properly developed to take its place as part of the cycle.
We then have the question of certification for the sixth year cycle. Obviously, the leaving certificate is the major certification in post-primary education: it is still the leaving certificate but now with six years.
There have been major developments in recent years. Already we have the transition year option, the vocational leaving certificate, the post-leaving certificate courses, the vocational preparation and training courses. All of these are worthwhile developments that have taken place over the years. We must ensure that we put in place a structure which incorporates all those developments that fit within six years of post primary education. It is very important that we do not jeopardise the situation by allowing developments to take place that go off at a tangent from an integrated post primary system, where the results of the fruits of three years of post primary education at senior level are dovetailed into one recognised certificate. I would like to see that development taking place.
In relation to the leaving certificate itself, it is now the recognised examination — and the Minister has done a lot of work on that herself — for access to third level. In 1992 we hope we will be at the stage where the CAO and the CAS are blended together and there is a common points system and a common entry points system for third level. Again, it would be a shame to see that jeopardised. I must refer specifically to the proposals by the City of Dublin VEC whereby special bonus points will be given to its students who are at present on post leaving certificate courses that come within a six-year cycle, that they will be given priority in an elitist fashion in regard to access to the six constituent colleges of the Dublin Institute of Technology, thus making it more difficult for students from any other part of the country, or indeed from any other secondary or vocational school elsewhere. What is happening here is that the CDVEC are a law unto themselves in this matter and that militates against every other VEC because the DIT is for the benefit of the entire nation, not for a particular VEC.
There are many other things I would like to go into with the Minister. I would like to explore the question of the new school model she mentioned and I would like particularly to look into the question of what is proposed in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in relation to how schools can operate in the future, the broadened parameters of their operation in a community context and how they can operate in terms of continuing education, in the context of adult education, literacy work, Youthreach and the VIOS. I would like to look into that and see how that can be structured so that secondary schools in particular can tune into that. It is an area that has largely been the preserve of the vocational system to date: there is no system whereby a secondary school can really become a community school, properly speaking, at present. There is need for a co-ordinating structure. I have mentioned before that what we need at this time is to look at our providers in that area, the VECs and what have been the religious bodies. I would love to see the whole area being integrated into a single system whereby post-primary education would be delivered by a co-ordinating body that would be responsible for providing back-up and research for all our post-primary schools.
An area we have been reluctant to go into in recent years is the whole question of educational broadcasting. Nowadays that is a big issue. We have distance learning. But here in Ireland our national station does not have personnel or does not have a slot for educational broadcasting. It is about time we looked at that again. It existed up to the mid-seventies and then it was done away with. There was special funding from the Department of Education for it for that period of time. It would be well worth while looking into that area again because it is part of modern technology and part of the lifestyle and ethos in which our youngsters develop. It could be a very useful learning programme for us.
I think it is time that we bring the debate down to a commonsense level. It is time to add realism to the debate. It is time to add a voice of opposition to the debate. It is clearly the case that the only party who opposed the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in the Dáil was my party and that remains the case. All is not well in education, firstly, with the pupil teacher ratio. There is no way that we compare to the European situation in that regard. It is the tragic and sad reality the blunt reality, no matter what we may say that at the moment 602 classes in the primary sector have 40 students in their classes. That is a factual situation admitted by the Minister to our spokesperson, Deputy Jim Higgins, in the Dáil.
There are many small schools around this country without remedial teachers and there is a crisis of remediation around the country. I would also say that there is a total inadequacy at the moment in the free book scheme. There is also a great problem at the moment with the capital building programme for schools. There are layers of bureaucracy and ridiculous administrative obstacles to the grant system, particularly for the third level colleges. When my good friend, for whom I have great personal regard, Senator McKenna, addressed the House it is a pity that he went off on a complete flight of fancy. It is a pity that he let his imagination fly with him. What was interesting was that
On a point of order, what exactly is Senator O'Reilly talking about?
(Interruptions.)
Teachers, the pupils are listening.
You would not realise, listening to Senator McKenna, that the truth is that we have not, during this term of office of this Government yet tackled effectively the pupil teacher ratio problem. We have not tackled the question of remedial teachers in our schools. We have not grasped the opportunity to improve the free book scheme. We have missed the opportunity to use education as a vehicle for mobility in society. There was a great opportunity facing this Government. They could have said that education would give the people the kind of opportunity for mobility that they need, that education would give us the kind of skills and start we need to create full employment in this country
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Senator O'Reilly, without interruption, please.
Senator McKenna brought a red herring into this debate in relation to the VEC colleges.
Acting Chairman
Senator McKenna tried to raise a point of order which was not a point of order. Now he must take a point of order. Senator O'Reilly must be allowed to speak without interruption.
With respect, Sir, I was interrupted ad nauseam when I was making my contribution by the same Senator.
My contention is that what has been missed and what goes on being missed by this Government is the chance to use education as a vehicle for equality of opportunity and as a vehicle to create employment in this country.
It is very significant that the level of stress and frustration and the low level of morale among our teaching profession at the moment has resulted in the fact that the ratio of female teachers to men is three to one. There is total frustration in the teaching profession at the moment. There was a survey carried out——
So you are saying that women are second class?
I did not say that. There was a survey carried out by the Irish National Teachers Organisation this year for their Congress which showed a high level of frustration among teachers throughout the country with the job at the moment. That is a factual situation. I put it to the Minister that the fact that we have so many small schools without remedial teachers and the fact that we have among the largest class sizes in Europe is a total indictment of this Government's performance in education.
It is my contention that there is nothing more in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress other than a set of platitudes. I have a lot of respect for Senator Costello, but I was disappointed to hear him acting as the Government press officer in this debate. I must genuinely put that to the House. Were I not to do that, I would be failing in my personal responsibility. It is my contention that this has been a lost opportunity in regard to education.
I thank the Seanad for inviting me to the House today. Lest it appear that I wanted this debate — I am very glad to be here and am always glad to talk in public and answer any questions — it was not I who prompted or requested it, but Seanad Members on the Opposition side. Some Opposition members then found themselves in an invidious position. If I had been in Senator Jackman's shoes — and I will tell her at the end what I would have done — I would not have handled it as she did and would have come out better, perhaps. However, it is for the Senator to decide upon her tactics.
I am most interested in this debate and before I go into the points, may I say one thing with regard to Senator O'Reilly, whom I like very much; I have had many interesting conversations about education with him. He started by saying what a dreadful thing it is that there should be three female teachers for every male teacher. In the Dáil, the Opposition spokesman on education, Deputy Jim Higgins raised this also on Dáil Question Time. He proceeded to tell the world how wrong it was that there were more female than male teachers. I said what was wrong was that the women were not getting into the principalship positions, that their greater numbers were not reflected in areas of responsibility or in principalship posts and I regret that. His complaint was that there were too many women teachers. Bully for the women teachers and more power to them. They bring a note of realism into the classroom. I reject any criticism of the ratio of 3:1 women teachers.
We want to balance the equation.
Balance my eye. We were long enough balanced the other way round and we have a long way to go before we reach any level of equality. I want to see the majority number of female participants in the teaching force duly participate at managerial and principalship levels.
Speakers on the motion were Senators Mullooly, Jackman, McKenna, Hederman, Keogh, Costello and O'Reilly and I thank them all for their commitment and efforts in the case of education. Most of them have been, or are, involved in education, a reflection of the high calibre of people who come to the Seanad and who make their mark in the education system. Various points were brought up by the Members.
The first point was raised by Senator Mullooly, Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Education who was most thoughtful and reflective in what he had to say. He praised where praise was due and cavilled where there was need for further consideration of questions. He was clear on the specifics of the PESP and he welcomed the proposed reduction in the pupil teacher ratio and the programme for disadvantaged pupils. He referred to one teacher schools and change is proposed in the circular which went out in March on this issue. For the first time in the history of the State there has been a reduction in the one teacher schools but it needs to be looked at further and I take that point and various other points he made.
Senator Jackman had difficulty coping in the particular circumstances. What I would have done——
I did not have a difficulty; the Minister had difficulty in accepting what I had to say.
You are a member of the union which wholeheartedly accepted the salary proposal and the genuine commitment to education contained in the PESP. The Senator's union fought as did the INTO and the TUI for many changes which got into the PESP. Neither the unions, nor the Department got everything they wanted but everybody fought dearly for the specifics. The Senator said the proposals were platitudinous; that there was nothing in them. I refer her to page 31 of the PESP where it says within the foregoing broad general framework it is proposed to initiate action on a number of specific areas as follows. The programme continues for five pages and deals with such matters as when each article is to be introduced. Senators Jackman and O'Reilly continued on the reckless course of saying that these things were not going to be. In March the primary schools were notified of their allocation, post-primary schools are currently being notified, allocations are available for the TUI sector and the voluntary sector and for community and comprehensive schools. They have been told the numbers of teachers they may employ.
There is no record of 250 jobs at primary level.
I want to go to that issue. Deputy Jim Higgins is a fine young man with a great future ahead of him and I wish him well. He is, however, going along the path of not knowing his facts and a life in education has taught me that you have to know your facts.
That is exactly what I wanted to get at.
Facts are a very good thing to know.
The Gradgrind system — facts, facts, facts.
I am sorry to tell Senator Jackman that the schools in the primary sector have been informed of their teacher allocation.
So, there are 323 plus 250 jobs? I was interrupted by the Minister when I spoke.
It does not matter how much the Senator shouts because I will shout louder. The schools in the primary——
I will expect 573 jobs in the primary sector.
The primary sector have already been given their teacher allocation. If the Senator wants all those letters to be sent to her individually I could try to do it but it would be a difficult task. Figures were arrived at within the ratio bands. There is no special political significance to their getting it. As I speak, the unions, management, parents and the Department are working through the 80 remedial teachers, 30 teachers for disadvantaged children, the massive expansion in the home school liaison scheme, the special teachers for children of travellers, the visiting teachers for young travellers and the changed ratio for the children with special disabilities in special schools for the handicapped. Some of these extra teachers have gone out to school and some of them are about to go out.
If I see the 573 salaries contained in the Book of Estimates in January 1992 I will be happy.
If I were in the Senator's shoes I would have said that I do not agree with the overall Programme for Economic and Social Progress but I do agree with the educational aspect in the programme. Would that not have taken the Senator out of her difficulty?
I am not interested in what you say. I am interested in the reality on the ground.
Any Member of this House who is a member of the teaching profession and who does not welcome a lowering of the pupil-teacher ratio is quite ridiculous.
I welcome the theory but I want to see it in practice.
Any teacher who does not commend the way we have begun to address——
I do not think the Minister was listening to what I was saying.
——the degree of disadvantage apparent in our schools is just as ridiculous. There are great educational provisions in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. As Senator Mullooly said, it contains the first open public commitment since the State was set up to a lowering of pupil-teacher ratio, to attention to disadvantaged pupils, to opening up access, to mobility of students. During the four years from 1983-87 every day was a bad day and every day had a bad tale. When there is a good tale to tell, let us tell it, but let us add to it.
That is untrue.
I have had enough indoctrination.
Let us add to it and we have a long way to go.
Is it not the case that we are way below the European level?
The Senator insists on saying the proposals are merely on paper. The teachers have been employed, I have been told, and if the Senator wants to continue with that——
Is it not the case that we have the largest class sizes in Europe?
We have all sorts of other things that are much better than in Europe. The Senator should check all sorts of other things as well and not quote notes written by himself; he should make up his own ideas.
This is not the classroom. I refuse to be indoctrinated by a teacher who is not interested in dialogue.
I would to God the gift to see ourselves as others see us. We will go on to the next speaker, Senator Hederman, who made a good speech. She did not praise or give out but spoke out about education in the way I like to hear.
She agreed with everything.
No, she did not agree with anything I said. She spoke about the correct meaning of the word "education". The Senator should not throw a tantrum. She spoke about the correct type of education necessary to equip a young person to survive, to live, to be able to call upon her own resources and the resources about her. She spoke about the correct meaning of the term `liberal education' which is a broad thrust along the path of the humanities and not an early specialisation. I agree completely with that. Early specialisation — this dual track arrangement which counties are going into and coming back from, going into a vocation at 15 years to be earmarked forever — all wrong.
Within the leaving certificate one should be able to take up academic subjects and practical subjects, subjects which would encompass the broad range of educational provision. The leaving certificate must remain the benchmark and to apportion children to a vocation at the age of 15 or 16 to say, "All you are going to do is this", is wrong. It does not equip children mentally or render them adaptable, resourceful or resilient to encounter any other kind of specialisation or for the broad thrust of life. I am strongly committed to this view.
Senator Keogh spoke about the need for pre-school provision. Children come into school at four and the Department of Education only recognise formal schools; the Department of Health look after what exists of pre-schooling provision. Children go to school at a younger age in Ireland than in any other European country. Participation in formal schooling at four is unknown in the rest of Europe. Perhaps when resources permit, we will address this matter. At the moment we cannot; we are trying to concentrate on the school proper.
The Senator mentioned the transition between primary and post-primary, an old chestnut of my own that I have often spoke about. The Senator also spoke of a council for the status of children. I had a sudden thought; what about a council for the status of men? That is a joke, because it conflicts with what I said earlier.
Senator McKenna gave a very robust performance and I thank him for his espousal of my causes. What the debate about local democracy is between Senator McKenna and Senator O'Reilly, I am not quite sure. It seems to refer back to a debate of last week. The Senator rightly identified various points within his own education sector, particularly at the vocational level and he identified expansion in second chance education and in education for the disadvantaged.
Senator Costello welcomed what was being produced in education and rightfully said we need more of it. That is my own contention and the recommendation in the PESB, which says that all of these provisions will be reviewed when that point is reached and allows, under the three year programme, for ongoing discussion and debate, is welcome in that context. The Senator raised some educaational specifics which I wish to comment on.
Senator Costello mentioned the Education Exchange Act. There should be a tie up under that Act between the new lingua programme and the way it is broadening out into Europe and I intended to have a word with my colleague about that. There were three other matters. One was the need to put in-service training on a proper footing. A report was commissioned which has now been received in draft form and will be resubmitted in its finality. I am glad to be able to announce this year an extension of the provision of teachers' centres. The centres have been informed and this will be made public quite soon. It is a modest step but it is the first time such a step has been taken in years.
The transition year is an interesting matter. During a debate in the Seanad last year it was discovered that transition year pupils around the country in 124 schools were taking the formal State examinations of this country or of the UK. I disagree with that because the announcement of the transition year, backed by Mrs. Gemma Hussey and it was a great step forward, was accompanied by a strong letter from the Department stating that it was not to be an examination pressure year; it was to be a year in which young people would find themselves and have time to do other subjects, would have time to come to the Seanad and listen to fevered debates, to go into Switzers and browse among the clothes, to do humanitarian work — visit a prison and see what happens there — and see how they could contribute to society. That is what the transition year was intended to be. Along the way some schools were naughty and decided, maybe under peer or parental pressure, that there was a need for an examination structure. I disagree with that. In furtherance of what I said at Easter, and what I have said here, I have sent a letter to all the second level schools giving them a date by which they must respond — the date has gone past — saying if they wished to continue with the transition year they must say that they are not participating in any formal State examinations, and their replies have come in.
We have three years to formulate a correct policy for transition. This is what Senator Costello was touching on. Every pupil beginning post-primary school in September will have the option of a transition year. It is, of course, a matter of choice. Some pupils will not want it and some parents will not deem it necessary but they will have a choice. We have time now to formulate a correct policy for the content of a transition year, for the resources to go with it and for its objectives. We are lucky to have that time. I will be asking all of the constituents within the NCCA to look at that matter very closely.
I like Senator O'Reilly on a personal level and I am disappointed as a teacher that Senator O'Reilly would not welcome a lowering of the pupil/teacher ratio among other things.
It is not enough.
It is never enough.
It is totally inadequate.
It is a change from Mrs. Hussey and, with respect, Mr. Cooney, who presided continually over a deteriorating situation. I presided over a deteriorating situation in the beginning but we perked ourselves up, got ourselves going and we were able to——
They are not comparable situations.
It is odd for a teacher not to want improvements. I cannot understand it. There is a basic intellectual dishonesty about a teacher who would say they do not want impovements in the classroom.
The Minister is selective in her interpretation.
I am delighted to be able to address this House on this motion. The script is there for the benefit and education of the Members and I would recommend it strongly to them and, indeed, to the transition year pupils. I would be very glad to supply them with scripts and perhaps someone could see to that when the students are leaving because it would be interesting and part of their day out.
The script refers to the Primary Curriculum Review Body and the newly constituted NCEA, to the Murphy review, and to the junior and leaving certificates. The NCCA and the bodies on it are at present looking at all the senior cycle provisions and the entrance procedures to college. There was no mention in the debate of the question of the number of honours and all that meant. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress is a unique and significant development along the road of educational reform for which I have obtained the backing of Government and social partners and for the resources necessary to make substantial progress. Education is now commonly regarded as the key to economic and social progress in the modern world.
Increased attention had been paid to developing the capacity of the education and training system to better serve the interests of the economy and substantial progress is being made in increasing links with industry. The approach of a new area based strategy will be to provide second chance education or training for those who leave the formal system before completing their second level education.
With regard to Youthreach, the former Minister, then Deputy Hussey, had two VTOs, we have 34 VTOs. In four years she provided half the number of remedial teachers I introduced in one year. The most significant provision in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress from the point of view of the reform of education is the commitment to issue a Green Paper on education by the summer of 1991, a White Paper in early 1992 to be followed by an education Bill.
I would ask——
May I say to Senator Jackman, with regard to the IDA that I am alarmed that the drawbridge is being drawn up and that the sentries are on the ramparts because people are saying "we cannot have this or that in an education Act", and I refer to one particular sector. Why not wait until the Green Paper comes out first and then we will have a full and open debate on it? People, including myself, will have to say what we stand for and what we aim to deliver and how we are going to go about it. People will have to be generous——
Will the Minister listen to the interest groups — she did not listen to us.
I will listen to the interests groups and I ask them to be open and courageous and not to think that the purpose of the Green Paper, the White Paper or the education Act is solely to preserve what obtains at present. There will, I hope, be a generous contribution of spirit and mind towards what is best for everybody in education, to take in not just teachers and management but children and parents who are the most important component and who will be demanding an equally important role in the full process——
And on the VEC committees.
——and parents on school boards of management where it really matters. In a recent letter to the management authorities of primary and post-primary schools, I stressed the importance of having a parents' association attached to each school and I have requested the management to take the necessary steps to ensure this. I have also requested school management authorities to actively promote all means of effective co-operation between the schools and the parents' associations.
The expansion in educational opportunities from the mid-sixties onwards has brought about a quiet revolution in the way we are as a people compared to what we were 25 years ago. Education is like that. It has a profound impact on the way a person thinks, perceives and acts and colours what you are going to be in later life. We could stay here day after day debating this topic. The idea of a regular debate on education in this House was floated last year because of the existence of the Educational Cultural Panel and the number of teachers among the Senators.
Fine Gael Members wanted a debate on education.
We would like an education debate where we would be allowed to speak.
I would say Fine Gael have had their fill of education today.
Not at all. I enjoyed it.
I think we should, but it is up to the Senators, not to me——
The Minister's excellence should not be a cause of provocation.
We should have such an occasion once a session but the Leader of the House might make the subject matter specific rather than general because when it is general, everything gets thrown into the debate. A more specialised approach would lead to a more in-depth study of a particular topic within education. I put this proposal forward before and perhaps it could be considered.
Many Members wished to speak on this motion but time did not permit it. It has been mooted that perhaps there should be a continuation of this debate on another occasion. I would welcome that and everyone could come in again.
Not in walk-on parts.
I may not be available if the Seanad decided in the next couple of weeks to have another education debate. However, I am sure Deputy Frank Fahey, the Minister of State at the Department of Education, would attend. I cannot promise he will be as feisty as I was but he is well able to look after himself and it would be a good debate.
I thank the Members and the Leader of the House for facilitating the other Members and I want to say I enjoyed the debate very much.
I would like to thank the Minister for coming here this evening to talk about this very important issue. The Seanad have been looking for such a debate for a long time and I indicated clearly on day one the Minister's intention to come to this House. She was anxious to be here and she has performed excellently as usual. I would like to thank all Senators who took part in this important debate. We will take up the Minister's suggestion of a debate every session on specific issues of education rather than an overall view of education and we will discuss that for the next session for future sessions of this House.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Costello, Joe.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
Níl
- Doyle, Avril.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Hussey and E. Ryan; Níl, Senators Raftery and Jackman.
Question declared carried.