I wish to discuss the need for the Minister for Education and Science to consider lowering the starting age for compulsory schooling, to encourage at an early age a pattern of regular school attendance, especially in disadvantaged areas. I remember the debates we had in this House about a year ago on the Education (Welfare) Bill, which set up a new structure to deal with the problem of non-attendance at school. Perhaps the Minister will fill us in on the progress that has been made in implementing that legislation. One of its provisions was to raise the age at which a person can legally leave the education system. We did not pay much attention to the possible need to lower the legal starting age.
My attention has recently been drawn to the fact that the starting age is also a problem, especially in disadvantaged areas. Educational disadvantage starts early; too many children arrive already disadvantaged on their first day in school, and then try to catch up with more fortunate children. The early start programme is important because it aims to attack the problem of disadvantage at the earliest possible moment.
I had a letter recently from a teacher in Tallaght, who is deeply involved in the early start programme. She works in St. Thomas's junior school and informed me of the attendance problem there. There is no attendance officer to deal with the problem. At present, the legal school-going age is six, but the law is out of date. To combat educational disadvantage, St. Thomas's operates the early start programme, which means that children start going there at the age of three. I was unaware of that until the teacher informed me.
The school also has a reduced pupil-teacher ratio and is given extra money to combat disadvantage. It is a waste of money, however, if children do not attend the school. Children who are not at school fail young and then turn away from the system. The cycle of disadvantage thus starts at the age of three because children, through no fault of their own, are not at school.
The teacher drew my attention to the problems created for the programme by the general culture of non-attendance at school that is prevalent in the whole area. The general issue is precisely the one the Education (Welfare) Act is designed to address. The problem in these areas is that there can be no policing of school attendance of three and four year olds, because of course they are not legally compelled to be at school. My correspondent suggests, not unreasonably, that the extra resources put into the early start programme are largely being wasted because of the attendance problem.
There is a gap here that we should try to put right. One could argue that we should attack the attendance problem right at the start of the education process. If non-attendance is an issue for three to five year olds, it is no wonder it becomes a major problem when they are older. We may assume that the legal starting age is a quaint anachronism, as all children are attending school by five at the latest. I argue that the legal starting age is a real problem, as it stands in the way of the early start programme being fully effective in disadvantaged areas.
I draw attention to this issue because I would like the Minister for Education and Science to do two things. He should think about reducing the legal starting age to a level where it starts to engage with reality. I would also like him to think about whether there is a need for special treatment in dealing with the attendance problem in relation to very young children. I have seen notes from a meeting that recently took place in Tallaght. The notes say that non-attendance at school is an issue which should concern all statutory agencies, rather than being viewed as a school problem.
School attendance is an indicator of wider problems, both in the family and the wider community. A large percentage of children do not attend school, for no apparent reason. There are a number of children, however, whose non- attendance results from severe family problems. In countries like Sweden, school attendance is linked to child benefit, and therefore loss of child benefit can be a deterrent. This reminds us that something can be done. The structures created by the Education (Welfare) Act are geared to the circumstances of older children. Perhaps the Minister could find room for a pilot programme to experiment with ways of encouraging better attendance among very young children, especially in disadvantaged areas.
Under the early start programme, children are taught from the age of three. This is wonderfuI, except for the attendance problem. If the Minister is looking for an area to carry out a pilot programme, I suggest he could hardly pick a better place than Tallaght. The letter I received, which I can show to the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, shows that some parents, teachers and schools are committed to solving this problem. Tallaght would be an ideal place to see if it is possible to do something. The cost would not be very high, but the benefits could be huge.
