Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Feb 1966

Vol. 220 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 28—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £95,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education (including Institutions of Science and Art), for certain Miscellaneous Educational and Cultural Services and Sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Minister for Education (Mr. Colley)

Last night I made some reference to the disgraceful speech by Deputy Oliver Flanagan. I do not want to dwell unduly on this but there is one further comment I want to make, that is, that at one point in his speech Deputy Flanagan quoted from the Official Report the text of a question he put to me last December. When he came to give his version of the reply, he put down the Official Report, despite requests from this side of the House to quote from it, and proceeded to quote from a newspaper report of some months later which was corrected the following day and which was known to be incorrect. I mention this because it occurs to me it was worth the while of everybody concerned with this question to consider why some of the most outspoken critics of the policy in regard to small schools, such as Deputy Oliver Flanagan, should feel themselves obliged to descend to such unscrupulous tactics. One finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that there is a certain lack of confidence in the merits of their case.

When we come to consider the question of closing small schools, there are two main aspects of the matter to be considered. First, there is the question of whether small schools should be closed and, secondly, the question of the mechanics of carrying this out and in particular the efficacy or otherwise of a transport system.

Now, if we consider first the question of whether such schools should be closed or not, I want to make it quite clear that this decision was not arrived at lightly, that it was announced here in Dáil Eireann and that it was arrived at as a result of the years of experience of the inspectors of the Department of Education. I also want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the decision implies no criticism whatsoever of the teachers in small schools. An attempt has been made to misrepresent the position and to suggest that I and my Department in arriving at this decision are criticising standards of teachers in small schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that some of the best teachers in this country are teaching in small schools. If they were not, these schools would probably have been closed a long time ago.

What I am saying is that we are handicapping good teachers by making them teachers in one- or two-teacher schools, that if they had the facilities of larger schools available to them, they could do much more for their students than they do at present. Indeed, the fact that they have done as well as they have in such difficult circumstances is of itself a very considerable tribute to their ability as teachers. The main reason for the difficulties that arise in small schools is quite obvious, that is, that in a one-teacher school, you have one teacher handling six, or possibly seven classes; in a two-teacher school, one teacher is handling, say, three classes at the one time, each of them doing a different subject at the same time. It is true that the classes are much smaller than in other schools, in most of the small schools anyway, but the question is: does this compensate for the fact that the teacher is trying to conduct three or more classes at the one time? Is it not obvious that we are not giving the teacher a fair chance in asking him or her to do this? This is the basic reason for the closing of small schools but the question then arises: this is all very well in theory but does it work out in practice in this way?

Any evidence we have shows that it does. We have been told here of the many people who are the products of one- or two-teacher schools who have aquitted themselves very well in all walks of life. There is no doubt that this is true but I have not heard many dwelling on the many thousands of children who have come from these schools who have not done well. After all, our concern should be with all the children and not the particularly bright and talented ones only. We all know of cases of children who have come from schools such as this who did not get a fair chance. Somebody pointed out here that unfortunately many of these people are those who will most likely have to emigrate, and had to emigrate heretofore, and this is true. We do not hear about them, or what happens to them, or at least we do not hear very much, but I have, since I embarked on this policy, had a number of letters from emigrants in Britain, people who had attended small schools which are in process of being closed. They described the conditions under which they were educated in terms which were frightening. Subsequently I checked in the Department and verified that such descriptions were not inaccurate. The general burden of such letters was: "Do not be put off; keep on and close that school. My only regret is that it was not done 25 years ago when I was there." I do not say that this is representative of all small schools but it is at least as representative as the argument about those who have done very well coming from small schools.

It is suggested that this decision has been arrived at by me who am a city man, who knows nothing about rural Ireland. I do not claim to be an expert on rural Ireland but I do know a great deal more about it than many of the critics give me credit for. Furthermore, I am advised in this matter by people who have had long experience of education, some of whom are products of one- and two-teacher schools. I have available to me the experience of approximately 60 inspectors who are visiting these schools daily, who know what is going on in these schools from day to day. We have found that the majority of the school managers with whom we have consulted in regard to the closing of schools have been in favour of closing these schools. These are school managers in rural Ireland, managing schools in rural Ireland. Are these completely out of touch with what is happening? Are the inspectors ignorant of what is going on in the small schools? Let us have a little reason in this matter.

Reference has been made to the report Investment in Education and an effort has been made to decry the findings of this on the basis that they are bounded by economic considerations. It is quite true that the general terms of reference are economic but it is very difficult when one studies a matter such as this, with reference to education, to stick entirely to economics. The findings of this Report in regard to small schools are summarised in Chapter Nine, paragraphs 79, 80 and 81:

As regards the possible benefits which result from this pattern it was seen that large schools perform best at the scholarship examinations, irrespective of location. The large schools can provide special preparation for the examination and there is no evidence that this is counter-balanced by the more favourable pupil/teacher ratios and smaller school classes in the smaller schools.

There are some indications also that the progression of pupils is slower in the smaller schools, so that on balance pupils of the smaller schools take longer to complete the full course. The reasons for this are not immediately clear but are not apparently due entirely to differences in age of starting school.

While we have no information on the structural conditions of the various sizes of schools, it will have been noted that small schools have far less satisfactory sanitary and drinking facilities, a high percentage of open fires, a minimum of special equipment and audio-visual aids and virtually no special rooms. And yet, per pupil place they are more costly to erect and the costliest to maintain. It was also observed that the pupil of a smaller school was likely to have a narrower range of subject available to him.

I am not aware of any reasoned attempt by anybody to dispute those findings.

Mr. Jones

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but would he care to refer to paragraph 9.38 on page 243, in regard to the keeping back of pupils, in which it is stated:

...if the extra "delay" is expressed in terms of the proportion of pupils who were not already delayed by the end of the first standard, it will be seen that the rates are the same for the small rural schools as for the large urban schools.

Mr. Colley

Yes, but I think there is a technical calculation involved here which we would have to discuss in more detail. The summary of that conclusion is as I have given it:

There are some indications also that the progession of pupils is slower in the small schools, so that on balance pupils of the smaller schools take longer to complete the full course.

That is a summary of the findings. The Deputy is aware that this is rather a technical matter, but the summary is one that can be understood by anyone without technical knowledge.

As I was saying, I was not aware that anybody has attempted to dispute these findings on a factual basis. I might add there is a reference there to pupils in the smaller schools normally having a narrower curriculum available to them. I wonder is it generally known that the requirements of the Department of Education in regard to smaller schools are less than in the case of larger schools? For instance, algebra and geometry are optional in these schools. They are taught in some of them and not in others. I do not know when this regulation was introduced. I assume it is of long standing. Why was it introduced? Is this not further evidence of a recognition by all concerned that the difficulties involved for the teachers were such that one could not reasonably expect the same standard from them as in larger schools?

Deputies who are members of county councils probably have experience of deputations coming representing teachers in small schools asking them to make sure that a sufficient proportion of the scholarships awarded by the county council were reserved for small schools. The teachers made the case, and rightly so, that they could not possibly be expected to compete with the larger schools. This argument has been accepted by practically every county council in the country. While we are on this subject of scholarships, I would like to clear up a good deal of confusion which has arisen, some of it I think not exactly by accident. I have never made the argument against small schools that they did not do as well in scholarship examinations as large schools. I have never made that argument. People who were opposed to my policy made the argument that the small schools did better. In fact, that is not true, as is shown in this Report. My attitude in this matter has always been that the gaining of scholarships is not clear evidence of the level of education given in a school. Therefore, I would not be prepared to use this argument either way, whatever the findings were; but may I appeal to those who are prepared to use it at this stage at least to have regard to the facts as established in this Report showing that the smaller schools do not do as well in obtaining scholarships. This calculation, I think, does not take into account the reservation of scholarships for small rural schools. I am not using that argument and I never have, but anybody who wants to use it should at least have regard to the facts. If they want to say that this finding is not true, there is an onus on them to show in what way it is wrong factually.

We know that most of these small schools were built one hundred years or more ago when conditions in this country were very different from those obtaining today. Transport was very much more primitive. The roads were not in anything like the same conditio tion and the standard of education required generally was not as high as it is today. The standard of comfort in schools was not as high as required now. These schools were quite suitable for the era in which they were built. But we are now in 1966 and we have got to face up to the problems involved for us.

This brings me to the implementation of this policy as far as I and my Department are concerned. We were satisfied that the small schools in general were not of educational advantage to the child as compared with the larger schools. Therefore, we had to consider how we should approach the problem of replacing them. The decision I took in this matter was that where one- or two-teacher schools were to be replaced, in other words, where a new school had to be built or a major improvement scheme carried out, we should review the position in that area to see whether we could avoid building a small school so that we would serve the educational interest of the children better by transferring them either to an adjoining school—where we would have at least a three-teacher school or bigger, if possible—or perhaps to a central school in the parish. Any other course would mean that we would be going ahead building small schools and, at the same time, saying these schools were not as effective educationally for the children as larger schools.

I do not see how we could possibly justify that attitude. This would condemn many more generations of our children to an education which we believe is not as good as what we can give them. I could not feel justified in condemning generations of our children to that. I regard it as my duty, as Minister for Education, to try to obtain the highest possible level of education for our children. It is because of that decision that, based on the reasons I have given, it has happened that a number of schools which were to proceed have stopped. I ask anybody who accepts the argument in regard to the greater efficacy of larger schools if any other policy is justified.

We have been given various arguments in regard to these small schools but I doubt if anybody has attacked the problem properly. There are a number of small schools in this country, recently built, with modern facilities, with good teachers, and it is possible to say: "Those schools should not be closed". I have not heard anybody say this. Perhaps the reason is that they know we do not intend to close such schools. I want to make it quite clear that this policy will take many years to reach fruition. It applies in the case of two-teacher schools only where the existing school has to be replaced. Schools recently built, with decent sanitary accommodation and with good teachers, are in no danger whatever of being closed down in the foreseeable future.

What surprises me, I must say, about some of the reaction to this policy is that one might imagine that this is some completely revolutionary change. What are we doing except transporting children, in the normal case, a matter of, I suppose, about four miles, and, in the normal case, within their own parish, to another school? One would think, to hear some of the statements made, that we were transporting them to Van Diemen's Land, to a completely alien environment. It is time that this problem was viewed in perspective. This is no revolutionary change. This is merely a small step in the endeavour to raise the standard of education available to all the children of Ireland. We find that, if we do this, we can get very much better value out of our teaching force.

Let me give an example. We have one area we came across in which we have, within a five-miles radius of the focal point which is the local village, 11 national schools with 15 teachers and a total of 225 pupils. Seven of these 11 schools are one-teacher schools. A number of them are due to be replaced.

Mr. James Tully

Where is that— Mayo?

Mr. Colley

I should prefer not to mention the area.

Mr. James Tully

Or Donegal?

Mr. Norton

West of the Shannon.

Mr. Colley

Can there be any justification in 1966 for continuing that situation? Surely this is a waste of teaching talent and surely there can be and has been no real dispute about the one-teacher schools? Surely the obligation is on us, if we want to do something for the children of this country when we get the opportunity of replacing the schools, to put an end to that kind of situation—and this is not an uncommon situation. Let us view the situation in the correct perspective, not in a haze of sentiment.

Now in dealing with this problem, I am well aware of the social implications. I disagree entirely with those who say that this policy is striking at community life in rural Ireland, particularly in the West. In fact, I can say the contrary. I say that unless we are prepared to give decent facilities to the children of this country, particularly in rural Ireland, they will not stay: their families will not stay. Why should they? Why should they put up with inferior conditions? No amount of sentimentalising about this will change these people's opinions. They have a right, as far as we can give it to them, to get the same kind of school facilities as are available to children in other parts of the country and, as far as I am concerned, anything I can do to give it to them I shall do.

This suggestion we have been hearing that we are taking away facilities is a complete misrepresentation of the position. What we are trying to do is to improve the facilities and to give a decent chance to the children of rural Ireland. I want to make it quite clear that this policy was embarked upon solely for educational reasons. Any other reasons, be they social or economic, must be subsidiary to that, as far as I am concerned. But, in so far as social considerations come into it, I believe that, socially, this is much to the advantage of rural Ireland. Economically, it is to the advantage of this country as a whole and to the particular parishes concerned.

The case has been made that this will cost extra money to these people who are affected. That is quite untrue. In fact, they will pay less money. Instead of having to pay the local contribution for a one- or a two-teacher school, they may have to pay no local contribution or, if they have to pay one for a central school, the cost will be very much less. Transport is being provided entirely at the expense of the State. It is quite untrue to suggest that there is any extra cost involved for these people. From the point of view of the taxpayer, this is more economic. This is not, as I said, by any means other than a subsidiary reason but I know of no reason why any Government or any Minister should be ashamed to save the taxpayer money.

In our approach to this problem, our method of work has been something like this. A school comes before us, a one- or a two-teacher school, which is in very bad condition and is due to be replaced. An inspector is given a map of the area showing the surrounding national schools and all the details of the enrolment in those schools and of the number of teachers involved. He goes to the manager of the school concerned and discusses with him whether it would be feasible to provide for the education of those children in one of the adjoining schools, if it is in good condition; and if, by amalgamating, one would create a viable school of at least three teachers, preferably more, he examines the area as to the condition of the roads, as to the likelihood of transport being available. He finds out and pinpoints on the map where each of the children in that school lives to see whether it would be feasible to provide transport. He then submits a report to the Department giving all these details of his inquiries. The matter is very carefully investigated in my Department and any case of doubt or difficulty is referred to me personally.

I have mentioned earlier that we have found as a result of these investigations that the majority of the managers concerned favour this policy. I want to stress that.

Mr. Jones

Might I ask the Minister are they the managers who are consulted with regard to specific schools now being examined?

Mr. Colley

That is correct. As the House will see from what I have said, we endeavour to treat each case, and we do treat each case, on its own merits having regard to the situation in the locality. There have been a number of cases of one- and two-teacher schools which we have investigated and in which we have decided that a new one- or two-teacher school should be built. I mention this because there appears to be some impression that there is a blanket decision that any of these schools that come to be replaced will not be replaced. That is not so.

Mr. James Tully

Will the building of two-teacher schools for which plans are already completed be held up indefinitely while the decision is being made?

Mr. Colley

Yes, but I can assure the Deputy that the decision as far as we are concerned does not take very long. When I say very long, I suppose the procedure I have described takes a matter of three or four months.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is aware that some have been waiting over 12 months for a decision and it has not come through?

Mr. Colley

Yes, but the Deputy will be aware that all the decisions on these matters are not entirely dependent as of yet on decisions in the Department.

Mr. James Tully

Does the Minister mean that the Department of Finance have a say in it?

Mr. Colley

I do not. I mean that we are endeavouring to obtain co-operation in regard to these matters.

Mr. James Tully

The co-operation is there in the cases I have mentioned.

Mr. Colley

I have given the reasons why we approach the problem on the basis of dealing with schools about to be replaced. This of necessity means some hold-up in the schools but I want to point out that in many cases where we decide not to go ahead and build a school and, instead, to transport the children to a nearby school which perhaps was built in recent years, the children, as a result, are getting into decent conditions much faster than they would be if we were waiting for the building of a conventional school, which would be a matter of a few years. Furthermore, the area concerned does not have to pay a local contribution. So that, while there may be some delay, in most cases the advantages involved for the area far outweigh the disadvantages of the delay.

As I have said, we are treating each case on its merits. In some cases where we have decided to go ahead with small schools, there have been reasons such as that the roads over which the children would have to be transported are unsatisfactory or may be satisfactory but may be impassable in winter. In other cases we have done this where there was only one school in the parish and that was a two-teacher school. In some such cases in Deputy Jones's constituency, we have said: "Go ahead; build a new two-teacher school". I am mentioning this because I want to make it quite clear that these cases are treated on their merits but that our overall approach to it is that, where feasible, we will not build more one- and two-teacher schools because we believe it is not in the educational interests of the children.

Reference has been made by some Deputies to the schools of minority religions. I could not help being amused by some of the references because it looked to me as though the speakers thought they were producing a new idea which had not occurred to me or to my Department. I want to assure them that we are well aware of this problem. I also want to assure them that we have discussed it in detail with the representatives of the Church of Ireland. Deputies might be interested to know that the authorities of the Church of Ireland have themselves prepared their own scheme of closure of small schools and amalgamation, without any prompting from us.

Mr. James Tully

Is it for the same reason as they have closed a number of their churches?

Mr. Colley

They have this difficulty, but one of their main difficulties is that they feel that if their children continue to be educated in small schools, in the course of time the standard of their education will be far below the standard of education available to the majority of people in this country and, therefore, they are very concerned about the problem. I want to assure the House that we are well aware of the problems involved and that we are working in close collaboration with the Church authorities of the minority religions in this matter.

I have stressed that we endeavour, where possible, to keep the children affected as a result of any transfer which is contemplated within their own parish. We go to considerable lengths to ensure this but it is not always possible. There are exceptions. You will come across cases where there may be five or six small schools built around the boundaries of a parish.

Mr. James Tully

Or one school built in the corner of three parishes.

Mr. Colley

This kind of thing happens also. In such cases the only reasonable way to deal with it very often is to transfer the children to a school in an adjoining parish. These are exceptional cases but, of course, we all know that there are many children attending schools and parishes other than their own at present, without any amalgamation or directives from the Department of Education, so that this is not any revolutionary situation in this country. As I say, it is exceptional. We endeavour to avoid it where possible.

I should make it clear that there are alternatives open where we close a school. I mentioned that it may be possible to transport the children to an adjoining school which was recently built. There are some cases where it is possible to do this without any addition to the existing school. I can think of one particular case to which I will refer later. It was built six or eight years ago as a three-teacher school. It is now only a two-teacher school and there is one room vacant. There is a school within two and a half miles of that which is due to be closed. This is a two-teacher school about to become a one-teacher school. In that case we are moving the children from the old school to the one two and a half miles away where there is a vacant room and we do not have to add to that school. In other cases it may be necessary to add to an existing school and in some cases it may be necessary to build a new central school.

Where a central school is required, it will be a school of at least four teachers, and it will take some time to build it. In the meantime, where conditions are bad, we are going to alleviate them by doing some repairs or by providing prefabricated classrooms. There seems to be some misconception about the size of central schools. Some people visualise children being taken out of one- and two-teacher schools and being sent to schools where there is an enrolment of thousands of children. This is ridiculous. It is just not feasible. We are moving the children a distance normally of about four miles and we just do not have this kind of population. It is not going to happen and we do not want it to happen.

The ideal would be to have one teacher for each class. In the vast majority of cases, we will not be able to achieve that. We will only be able to get some of the way towards it. There is no question of transporting children from one- and two-teacher schools to huge schools. I mentioned a moment ago the case of a school which was a two-teacher school and is about to become a one-teacher school and to be replaced and that we would move the children to a three-teacher school which is now only a two-teacher school and where there is a room vacant. That case is in County Clare.

Mr. James Tully

I thought all the schools in Clare were good.

Mr. Colley

There are a few bad ones left. I mention this because Deputy Murphy from Clare spoke last night on this subject and it would be fair to summarise what he said as being that he felt that the closing of small schools was inevitable. He did not make it clear whether he was for or against it but he said he was dissatisfied with the transport arrangements. He mentioned this case without saying where it was. He said that we had closed a school and that there was no transport provided.

This is a justifiable comment by Deputy Murphy but I would like him and the people of that area to know that we have been willing at all times to pay 100 per cent of the cost of a transport service. The only reason there is not a transport service there is that the manager has refused to arrange it. I want to apologise profusely to the children and to their parents for the inconvenience caused to them.

I was asked whether I had consultations with the INTO. I think certain confusion may have arisen about this. I want to make it clear that I discussed this matter with representatives of the executive of the INTO. While I realise that the matter has not yet been discussed at the INTO Congress, which will not take place until Easter, the representatives of the executive made it clear to me that they had no objection in principle to the closing of smaller schools.

It should be clear by now that as a result of what we are doing, we are going to have better use of our teacher power. In the case I mentioned where we have 15 teachers in 11 schools it is obvious that amalgamation there would release a minimum of three and perhaps four teachers.

Mr. Jones

Was the figure 15 teachers?

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Mr. Jones

And the number of pupils?

Mr. Colley

Two hundred and twenty-five in 11 schools.

Mr. Jones

And employment will decide how many will be left there?

Mr. Colley

Yes; I want to deal with that. In practice, what happens is that the teachers from the school which is being closed normally move into the amalgamated school. They do not lose in any way as a result. Any allowances they have or would have had they retain. If, as a result of the moving, there is an extra teacher in the amalgamated school, we retain that teacher there until a vacancy arises in the district concerned. Then that teacher is asked to take that post. So far there has been no difficulty in that regard. Usually you will find that there is some teacher near retiring and that there is automatically a vacancy. We do not anticipate any difficulty in this regard but there can be no question of any teacher being redundant as a result of this plan. This will not happen and we will get much better use of the teaching power available.

Mr. P.J. Burke

No teacher will lose his salary?

Mr. Colley

No teacher will lose his job, salary or allowances.

Mr. P.J. Burke

What happens if he is a principal?

Mr. Colley

He will not lose anything.

Mr. James Tully

Does the Minister envisage any dispute with a teacher being brought in under somebody else?

Mr. Colley

No, we do not. I said there was another aspect to this. It is the question of transport. We heard a great deal about transport. We heard it was bad for the children, bad for their health, bad for them educationally. I am not sure, indeed, if it was not even suggested that it was bad for them morally; it was imposing grave hardship on children, particularly younger children, and causing grave concern to parents.

I want to make it quite clear now that I can well understand that people who have no experience of this kind of transport would have genuine reservations and would want to get information. Whenever I have had the opportunity of dealing with such people, I have endeavoured to give the information at our disposal as a result of the experience we have had.

It has been suggested that we ought to deal with this on the basis of a pilot scheme. We had a pilot scheme for many a long year in regard to transport and, for many years, the Department has been subsidising transport services to national schools. We have hundreds of such services all over the country. We know how they work. We know that the arguments put forward here do not apply in practice. Deputy Briscoe was assailed last night as being a city man who knew nothing about rural Ireland. I have been similarly assailed both inside and outside this House. The strange thing is that these self-appointed and self-professed experts on rural Ireland, particularly the experts on the educational scene in rural Ireland, either do not know what is going on in rural Ireland on the educational scene from the point of view of transport or, if they do know, then they are quite dishonest. If they do not know, they should stop calling themselves experts; if they do know, they should tell the truth.

We had some statements here last night on this from Deputy O. J. Flanagan.

Mr. Crowley

"Misstatements" would be a better word.

Mr. Colley

He told us about the terrible dangers and troubles inherent in transport. I want to draw the attention of the House and of Deputy Flanagan to the fact that there are transport services being operated within his constituency to quite a number of schools. I will give the names of some of them. The list is not exhaustive: Camross, two services; Kiladooley, two services; Ballyroan; Castlefleming; Offerlane; Abbeyleix South; Clonenagh; Oxmantown; Charleville; Luggacurren; Rathdowney; Banagher parochial; Moneygall; Bilboa

We heard, too, similar criticisms to those voiced by Deputy Flanagan from Deputy Coogan. He might like to know—I assume he does not know it at the moment—that there are subsidised transport services being operated to national schools in his constituency, some of which are as follows: Eagles Nest; Ballinafad; Ros Cathail; Camus; Caiseal, two services; Letterfrack; Roundstone, two of them; Cornamona, two of them; Clarán.

Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins also told us about the terrible dangers in transport. She may like to know that there are transport services, subsidised by the Department of Education, operating to national schools in her constituency, some of which are as follows: Brownsgrove; Mountbellew; Killyan; New Inn; Eyrecourt; Magh Eanaigh; Lehrin, Belclare; Kilnadeema; Aughrim; Killconnell, Corrandulla.

I want to ask these critics what transport services have they gone to see in operation? They have spoken of the concern of the parents. Have they asked them whether they think their children are suffering as a result of this? Have they asked them why they send their children on this transport? Have they wondered why it is that I regularly receive representations from Deputies of all Parties to extend and improve and create new transport services?

I challenge any of these critics to get up in public and propose that the Department should abolish these transport services. Let me say that a number of young children are carried and none of these terrible consequences about which we have been hearing has resulted. I challenge the Fine Gael Party to put down a motion asking the Department to do away with these transport services. If these people believe one half of what they said yesterday they have no option but to abolish these transport services because of the terrible injustice and hardship inflicted. If, however, they do not want these transport services to be abolished, then I do not think they can deny to anybody that they did not mean one word of what they said. They cannot have it both ways.

There is an obligation on anybody who professes to want to discuss this matter seriously, who professes to be interested in the welfare of our children, to examine the facts. These transport services are operating all over the country and people can find out for themselves how they operate. If they want to criticise a transport service on the basis that they know there are defects, on facts they have and can talk about, that is one thing. But nobody did that. They told us about all the theoretical defects in these services. They made no effort whatever to rely on any facts, for the good reason, of course, that they know these services operate quite satisfactorily.

What concerns me in all this is the fact that there are parents who will be involved in sending their children on these transport services, who have no experience and no knowledge of the services; all their fears are being played on by irresponsible people who are either ignorant of what is going on in the educational sphere in rural Ireland or who, knowing the truth, deliberately conceal it. It is time the people, particularly the people of rural Ireland, the future of whose children is at stake, realised the kind of tactics being used to oppose this policy. It is time they realised that their natural doubts and reservations are being deliberately played upon and fanned, not out of any regard for their children but for motives, motives about which one may speculate.

I want to assure such parents that our experience in operating hundreds of services all over the country over a long number of years has been quite satisfactory. None of the terrible things we were told about has happened. We have never had any complaints. Children involved in these transport services are out in the weather much less than if they were walking to school. They are home earlier than they would be if they were walking from school. Young children remain back in the school playing but under the supervision of the teacher and go home with their older brothers and sisters. Every effort is made to organise the transport service to pick up children at points as convenient as possible to their homes. They do not have to assemble at the site of the old school, as was suggested, and the vast majority are out from home less and they are out in the weather less.

What is the difference between the transport services we have been operating for years and the ones which will operate as a result of an amalgamation of schools? The difference will be that the ones operating in the case of amalgamation of schools will be completely free while the others involve a reasonably substantial local contribution. They operate in exactly the same way otherwise. Everything that can be done should be done to expose the hypocrisy in regard to the criticism of transport services by people who should know better, and, if they do not, they have the obligation to find out the facts. I trust that Deputy Flanagan and his colleagues, if they believe one half of what they said about these transport services, will go to the parents of the schemes being operated in their constituencies and tell them they believe that in the interests of their children these schemes should be stopped. Let them see what reaction they get. They will find out then what parents think of having their children transported to school.

Deputy Jones referred to my speech in introducing my Estimate in which I suggested the setting up of an advisory body and he said he thought that I intended to refer this problem of smaller schools to such an advisory body. However, he did not advert to the fact that when I was introducing that Estimate and talking about this, I said that one of the reasons I wanted to set up such an advisory body was this—I am quoting from the English translation of what I said:

There does arise a certain difficulty in relation to consultation, for consulting with a large number of bodies.... must inevitably give rise to heartbreaking delays.

One of the heartbreaking delays is exemplified in the fact that this advisory body has not yet been set up. I communicated with all the bodies concerned and most of them have replied stating that they are willing and happy to take part in it. However, I have not received replies fully from all the bodies yet, and this is the reason this body has not been set up. I will concede freely to Deputy Jones that, on re-reading what I said, I find it is possible to interpret it in the way he interpreted it. I do not think it is necessary to interpret it that way but it is possible to do so. It was not intended by me to wait until this body was set up and then to refer this problem of smaller schools to them, because I believe the matter is urgent and vitally urgent.

I believe the case for the policy I am pursuing is clearly established. I believe that it is self-evident if one starts off on the basis of what is in the best interests of our children and in the best interests of nobody else, or is this going to hurt the feelings of people who went to school there themselves, whose parents went to school there and who want their children to go to the school? I understand that. I do not decry it, but I cannot put this before the welfare of our children. I must go ahead as a matter of urgency to put this policy into effect if I am to discharge my duty to the children of this country, particularly those of rural Ireland.

The suggestion that we should embark on pilot schemes in regard to this is attractive enough in theory, but in practice what does it mean? It means that in most places we are going to have to replace one- and two-teacher schools. We are not going to go ahead and build new ones until— I do not think it is unfair to say— the most reactionary elements in our community eventually see the benefits of this policy. In the meantime we are going to have built, perhaps, some hundreds of small schools, certainly 100 small schools, which must be carried on over some generations. The children attending these schools are going to be condemned to an inferior education and, with the developments that are taking place, the gap will tend to widen as time goes on between education available in small and larger schools. I am not prepared to condemn these children to these conditions in order to pacify the most reactionary elements of the community. If anybody feels that an injustice is being done to these children by moving them to a school within a few miles of the school they are attending, an injustice such as would counterbalance any advantages involved in attending larger schools, the onus is on such people to prove it and to convince the public that this is so. This has not been done.

It has been alleged that in closing these schools we are removing children from a rural environment into an urban environment. This is not so in the vast majority of cases, but there may be exceptions. There are a small number of exceptions where there is a school which is due to be closed and which is within a couple of miles of a town or a village, the next school to it being perhaps eight or ten miles away. In these cases it is not possible to avoid bringing the children in, but, remember, we are talking about children attending a school within about two miles of a town. Are we to imagine that they never go into that town, that they are never influenced in any way by that environment? On the other hand, we had a school that was due to be closed within two miles of a town but there was another school about three miles further out into the country to which the children could be moved. We proposed to do that and I was accused of moving them further out into the country away from the amenities that should be available to them. Whichever way we go, there will be objections. My policy is to avoid bringing children from rural schools into town areas in any case where this is possible and that is the vast majority of cases.

There is another aspect of this that deserves to be mentioned and it is that teachers benefit usually quite considerably from the fact that they are in contact daily with colleagues and can discuss their problems as teachers with them. Clearly this is not possible for a teacher in a one-teacher school and it is limited in two-teacher schools. This is an advantage which should not be overlooked but I want to make quite clear that most of the one-teacher schools are in remote areas—not all, but most of them—and that some of them find it extremely difficult or impossible to get trained teachers. They get somebody who has passed the Leaving Certificate, but has no training as a teacher, on a temporary basis. They cannot even hold them and they change from month to month almost and are left for periods without any teacher.

I think it was mentioned by Deputy Jones that in some of these areas it is difficult to keep the younger teachers, that the principal teacher is usually settled, living in the area. I may be wronging Deputy Jones——

Mr. Jones

I do not think I said that.

Mr. Colley

Some Deputy on the Fine Gael side said this and that particularly the young teachers wanted to move off to Galway city and perhaps attend the university and so on. The case was made that if you close a school like that and transfer to another, the man who is settled and living in the area will not be prepared to travel to the new school and that you will lose him. You will have a turnover in younger teachers in any case but it was suggested you would lose the settled men also. This seems to me to be a misreading of the situation. We are talking about relatively short distances. I cannot see a teacher established in such an area getting out simply because he has to travel three or four miles to school whereas formerly he could walk across the road. If the younger teachers are going to keep moving, surely the damage caused by this turnover is going to be less in the larger school than in the small one?

I am particularly pleased that the controversy over this policy seems to have produced an unprecedented concern with the rights of parents because I have been for a long time advocating the rights of parents in Irish education. I have felt, and I have said so in public, that deliberate efforts were made to exclude parents from education, and if this controversy does nothing else but forward the rights of parents in education, it will have done a lot of good. There is talk about consulting parents but nobody seems to advert to the fact that we have no system which enables us to consult parents. I shall deal with that later but I want to draw attention to that fact.

Some suggestions were made that the report Investment in Education had said that in the working out of new strategies, pilot areas should be selected. I think this is a misreading of the report and that this is certainly not suggested in regard to the question of closing small schools. The word “strategy” has a different and somewhat technical meaning in operation in research and I think it is in this sense it is used in the report.

Mr. Jones

Am I to infer from that that strategy is used as a term dealing with economic investigations?

Mr. Colley

Yes. I have already spoken about the transport provided under this scheme being free. I want to make it absolutely clear that it will be free to the children and the parents and it should not be confused with the ordinary system of transport which, as I said, has been in operation for many years and which does require a local contribution.

Deputy Briscoe gave a quotation from President Kennedy which is quite apt and applicable to us and cannot be repeated too often, to the effect that the progress of a nation can be no swifter than its progress in education. We should all remember this.

Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins urged that the west of Ireland should be excluded from this policy. Did she realise the implication of that plea? In saying that, she was, to my mind, urging that the west of Ireland should be excluded from any improvements we can make in our educational system. Does she honestly think that if the rest of the country had almost exclusively three-teacher or larger schools and was getting the benefit of transport services, the west of Ireland would be satisfied with the situation, that this is what they want? Does she not know that they would feel they were being deprived, even if she does not accept this as I do, of the educational benefits of this policy? If she considers the matter, I do not think she could seriously continue with that plea. As far as I am concerned, since there is a heavy concentration of these small schools in the west of Ireland, the need for this policy is greatest in the West and the children there are most in need of the benefits which we can confer on them. That is what I intend to do.

Deputy Lindsay said that he thought it a pity that education should become a matter of controversy. I agree with him in one way but in another I do not because, first, we all know that if progress is to be made in any sphere, it inevitably provokes controversy. Secondly, in so far as we have controversy in education, it means that people are taking an interest in education and inevitably are learning more about it. In this country such a development could only be a welcome one. We have suffered far too much in the past from a lack of interest in and an apathy towards education.

There has been some talk about the obligation on different people to speak out on this matter and on Deputies to represent the views of their constituents, all of which statements are quite true, but I wonder has much thought been given to the obligation which rests on me as Minister for Education to do what I believe to be right and what I believe to be in the best interests of our children. Being firmly convinced of that, is it suggested that because opposition appears and pressure is brought to bear, I should deviate from what I believe to be right? I have an obligation, too, and I intend to discharge it. Deputy Lindsay said that the closing of one-teacher schools was a recognition of the depopulation of the West. This is true. It is a factor, but it is time we faced facts and realised that the kind of organisation as regards schools and other things which was suitable to the West 100 years ago is not necessarily the best type of organisation today with a much smaller population and a higher standard of living.

There are, of course, other factors in this as I have mentioned earlier, the complete change in the conditions as regards roads and the standard of education now expected. The plea has been made that we should maintain a rural bias as far as possible in rural schools. I entirely agree with that. I do not feel that we are doing enough in that direction but I think that a positive approach to it is within the school itself. I should like again to plead that we keep this thing in perspective and not talk about changing the whole environment of the children because we move them a distance of four miles or so within their own parish. This kind of exaggeration is of no help in trying to see all the very serious problems involved for us in giving our children the best educational system we can afford.

Somebody raised the question of insurance in regard to transport. I want to make it clear that there is full insurance and that that is part of the cost which is covered. Deputy Lindsay said he thought some of the difficulty in this matter might have been caused by the fact that I met only some of the Hierarchy and not all of them. Now, I do not want to bring the Hierarchy into this debate at all as was done by some other speaker, but since Deputy Lindsay said this, I feel I should make it clear that I have already disclosed in public and explained why I felt at liberty to disclose that I had received a letter from the Hierarchy and I quoted what I said was the key sentence from it. That sentence makes it clear that there is no question of the Hierarchy being opposed to this question in principle. It is unthinkable that one should say that each case should be considered on its merits and at the same time, be opposed to it in principle. The two things do not go together. I am not quite sure, however, what Deputy Lindsay had in mind but I want to make it clear in so far as I have met a deputation from the Hierarchy that the composition of such deputations, in my view, is a matter for the Hierarchy and nobody else. I do not think it is a matter for me, for Deputy Lindsay or anybody else other than the Hierarchy to comment on the make-up of any such deputation.

Deputy Burton repeated an argument which has come up from time to time, that the closing of a school will result in a depreciation in the value of property in the area. I find it difficult to take this argument seriously, but since apparently it is put forward seriously, I should like to point out that surely if one is advertising property for sale as being near church and schools, then one is no worse off if one says that it is near a church and that free transport is available to the school. As I said, I find it difficult to take this argument seriously.

Deputy Gilhawley made what I thought was a reasonable speech. Naturally, I suppose I thought that because he was agreeing with me, but he is a principal of a two-teacher school and it is of some significance in the circumstances of this debate, with his Party taking the line they did, that he as a principal of a two-teacher school, should take the line he did. He spoke of the social value of schools in a rural community. It seems to me that there is a good deal of— putting it at its best—wooly thinking about this. I should like to ask Deputies how many rural schools or what proportion of them are used for any community purposes other than the holding of the school? Do we not know that the vast majority of them are not used for any other purpose? But where such schools are used for community purposes, this would be a factor that we would take into account in assessing whether a school should be closed.

If we close a school, this does not mean that we demolish the building. The building will still be there and available for community purposes. It is said that this is not the same thing, that the teacher has gone and that the teacher was the focal point. As I say, I have been accused of not knowing anything about rural Ireland, but I know this much, that more and more what is happening is that the teacher drives up in the morning, opens the school, conducts the school during the day and is gone immediately afterwards. This is happening on a widespread scale and developing more and more, and it is inevitable. I do not blame the teachers at all. They are entitled, if they feel they can have greater amenities for themselves and their families in an urban area, to have them. However, we must recognise that this is a fact of life in rural Ireland today and not try to fool ourselves by talking about the teacher and the local school being the focal point when in many cases this is not true and is becoming increasingly less true as time goes on.

I wonder whether, when Deputy Lindsay was talking about transport, he felt it was a greater hardship on young children to have to walk two or three miles to school in the rain, and perhaps sit in damp clothes than to be carried by bus for a distance of four or five miles? It seems to me it is something that very few of the children or parents concerned would agree with, all the more particularly when they see this in operation. Our experience has been that, when this kind of scheme has been operated, within a short time we have had proposals from the adjoining parish for amalgamation and free transport. There is some significance in this. I venture to suggest that, as the policy we are implementing begins to be demonstrated, the problem we are going to have in the Department, and the problem Deputies opposite will have, is that of being inundated with requests for amalgamation and free transport.

Deputy Lindsay spoke about Ballymacola national school. This is a one-teacher school in very bad condition. It has 29 on the roll. The average attendance is 20, about 60 per cent. The normal percentage for attendance is between 85 and 90 per cent. If Deputy Lindsay lived in that area and if his children were dependent on Ballymacola national school for their education, he would do his damnedest to get me to close that school within 24 hours. I want to urge that we should approach this problem by reference to the standards we want for our own children and not the standards that are held up to us as being quite suitable for the children of rural Ireland. If we would not be satisfied with them for our own children, we should not be satisfied with them for the children of rural Ireland.

I want to conclude by referring to the Fine Gael attitude on this whole matter. I sympathise very sincerely with Deputy Jones in this position. He is a man for whom I have the very highest regard. When he was making his speech on this matter, I felt—this may have been imagination on my part—that he was embarrassed. If he was embarrassed, it does not surprise me. Indeed, it would surprise me if he were not.

Mr. Jones

I should say to the Minister that I was not a bit.

Mr. Colley

Good; I am disappointed that the Deputy was not. My opinion of him was somewhat higher. The position is that Deputy Dillon, as Leader of the Fine Gael Party, repeatedly advocated the policy we are pursuing and no member of the Fine Gael Party ever repudiated this. Then Deputy Dillon ceased to be Leader of the Fine Gael Party. When I spoke about this matter on July 21st last and said we were going ahead with it, we had some discussion here in the House. Deputy Meaney has referred to this, but I think it will bear repeating. Having outlined what we were doing, I ended up by saying, at column 1969 of Volume 217:

I do not think I need dwell further on that matter, except again to appeal to Deputies, when the objections come, as they will, to remember that the educational interests of the children concerned are involved and not to allow sentiment to stand in the way.

A little further on in the next column, column 1970. Deputy P. O'Donnell, the former spokesman for the Fine Gael Party on education, said:

This is what Fine Gael have advocated on many occasions, as the Minister has pointed out.

Mr. Colley: Deputy Dillon pointed it out, as Leader of the Party.

Mr. P. O'Donnell: I did, too. We will always find the individual school and have no option but to make representations when requested but the policy adumbrated by the Minister is one that Fine Gael have been advocating.

Mr. Colley: I feel that I will have the full support of Deputy O'Donnell in any such case.

Mr. P. O'Donnell: You certainly will.

When those statements were made, Deputy Jones, the present Fine Gael spokesman on education, was present sitting beside Deputy O'Donnell and he did not attempt to repudiate them then or since until quite recently.

Mr. Jones

I am sure the Minister will allow me to say that I did not give him any imprimatur either on the occasion?

Mr. Colley

I grant the Deputy that, but I am afraid it is not good enough to say, as Deputy Jones said yesterday in response to an interjection from this side of the House, that this was not Party policy but merely a statement of personal opinion. If the Leader of a Party repeatedly advocates a policy and if a front-bench member, a former spokesman on education, sitting beside the present spokesman on education, repeats that as being Party policy, what is anybody to accept but that it is Party policy?

Mr. Jones

Again, if I may answer. The Minister will not take me to task in connection with this matter because I am sure the Minister would not publicly disagree with his Cabinet colleagues in this House.

Mr. Colley

That is correct.

Mr. Jones

Good taste demands otherwise.

Mr. Colley

If a Party has a policy, as a member of that Party, one has to support it. If a Party wants to change a policy, then the Party has to come and change it. It is no use pretending it is not a policy at all and saying it is only an expression of personal opinion. That is not convincing.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister's Party never cease changing their policy.

Mr. Colley

The winter edition of Studies for 1965 contains a review of the Report Investment in Education by Senator Garret FitzGerald, who is, I understand, a front-bench member of the Fine Gael group in the Seanad. Indeed, it is no secret that he contributes considerably to the formulation of Fine Gael policy. On page 372 of that edition of Studies he says, having reviewed this Report:

The case against these small schools on economic and educational grounds is thus a powerful one, especially when account is taken of the information given on the poor facilities and narrower range of subject offered in these small schools and above all of the possibility of releasing several thousand badly needed teachers to improve teacher/pupil ratios in the larger schools, if the small schools were gradually closed as they become obsolete.

Mr. Coogan

"Obsolete" is the word.

Mr. Colley

The point I want to make quite clear is that there can be no doubt as to what the Fine Gael policy was in this matter in July, 1965. There may be a little doubt, but not much, as to what it was around Christmas last when this appeared but suddenly we find that there is a change. I was not quite sure, when I listened to Deputy Jones, just what the change was. It seemed to me that he and some speakers who followed him were trying to have both sides of the argument. I do not fault him for that, if he can get away with it: it is very satisfactory for a political Party to be able to do that. It seemed to me that he was not directly opposing the policy: on the other hand, he certainly was not agreeing with it. But, then, subsequent speakers, particularly Deputy O. J. Flanagan, made it quite clear that the line was total opposition to this policy.

There was some suggestion from Deputy Jones, Deputy Lindsay and, I think, some others, that there should be a full local inquiry before schools close. I do not know whether the Fine Gael Party just thought this up as a gimmick and said it out without thinking of its implications or whether they thought out the implications and, having done so, wisely decided not to talk about them. The House will notice that no member of the Fine Gael Party went any further. He did not endeavour to spell out what he meant. I should like to endeavour to spell it out a little further to see what would be meant.

First of all, who is to be the person to conduct such an inquiry? On what basis is the decision to be made? Is the situation to be that all the parents of the children at a particular school decide for or against or that the majority of them decide it? Presumably it is obvious to the Fine Gael Party, if this is any more than a gimmick, that any question of amalgamation involves at least two schools, very often more. The case I mentioned earlier of an area with 11 schools, 15 teachers and 225 pupils would clearly be one where six or more schools might be involved. If the parents in one school say: "We want it", and the parents in another school say: "We do not want it", what is supposed to happen then? Is it seriously suggested that anybody could run an educational system on that kind of basis? I am not sure whether this was put forward as a gimmick or whether, the implications having been thought out, they were wisely left unsaid. The Fine Gael Party cannot be serious in putting this forward or they would have spelled it out in more detail and told us the view they would take on some of these questions I have raised.

I feel that the attitude of the Fine Gael Party on this policy requires some little thought to get the correct description of it. I have heard various words used to describe it. I have heard the word "contemptible" used. I myself think the most appropriate adjective or epithet is "pathetic". We have this situation that their policy was fixed and publicly announced, presumably because they believed it was in the best interests of the children, and suddenly, when some pressure comes on, they scurry like rats for cover. This is not the first time the Fine Gael Party have been known to scurry for cover.

The efforts of the Fine Gael Party in the past have not induced confidence in many people. Some people had, I think, hoped that, under new leadership, there might be a different approach. But, unfortunately for the Fine Gael Party, this seems to be an inherent weakness in the Party and as long as this exists, they cannot ever hope to gain the confidence of the Irish people. How can they expect people to have confidence in a Party which adumbrates a policy, to quote Deputy P. O'Donnell, clearly and unequivocally and suddenly runs for cover when pressure comes on? Did they believe it to be in the interests of the children or did they not? Where do the interests of the children come in now?

I feel that there is an element of calculation of short-term political advantage involved here possibly also and again, as they have done in the past, I think the Fine Gael Party have miscalculated on this. Not alone have they demonstrated once more their inability to deserve the confidence of the people but I think they have also miscalculated in that, as I said earlier, their problem in the future will be that so many of their constituents will be looking for the implementation of this policy rather than the opposite. I can assure them that, when that time comes, I do not intend—and I doubt if any member of my Party intends— to let the people forget the line which was adopted by the Fine Gael Party on this matter. I doubt, as I say, if, in these circumstances, the Fine Gael Party have made the right political calculation.

Mr. Jones

I did not want to interrupt the Minister during the course of his speech——

Mr. Colley

I appreciate that.

Mr. Jones

Perhaps at this stage, he might care to comment on a couple of matters he mentioned. Last night, he spoke about group testing. Was this in operation in the schools in this country from 1925 onwards, and before it? Is it a fact that this was practised in the Training School in Drumcondra away back?

Mr. Colley

I am not aware of any scientific testing of the effects.

Mr. Jones

It was tried in practice over the years.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy knows that it is being done now in some of the training colleges and many arguments are being put forward for it.

Mr. Jones

Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that if this policy is pursued the position will be in three-teacher schools, as it is at the present time, that a teacher will be teaching several classes, for instance, infants, first and second; third and fourth; fifth, sixth and possibly seventh? Would the Minister agree with that?

Mr. Colley

I have already said that the ideal is one teacher for each class but that there is no hope of attaining that ideal in present circumstances.

Mr. Jones

Or never will be while three-teacher schools are in existence.

Mr. Colley

That is true, but, naturally, to the extent that one gets nearer to the ideal one is doing better than one-teacher schools.

Mr. Jones

Would the Minister care to comment on the standards of efficiency, as to whether the smaller schools did as well, or maybe better, in regard to Carlisle and Blake premiums?

Mr. Colley

I think they were tests of individual teachers.

Mr. Jones

Yes, and the work of the schools also.

Mr. Colley

It was not an assessment of the work of the small schools as compared with the work of the big schools.

Mr. Jones

Would the Minister care to say how he would consult the parents? Would he agree that at present schools are used, for instance, for medical inspection and that documents are sent to the parents asking as to various diseases a child might have had and for the parents' consent to certain courses? That is being done.

Mr. Colley

That is being done.

Mr. Jones

Therefore, that would be an opportunity for the Minister.

Mr. Colley

Has the Deputy considered the implications of what he is suggesting?

Mr. Jones

We can discuss it later. One other matter that the Minister may care to comment on is in regard to the area where he mentions seven schools and 15 teachers, that the normal average staffing regulations are that a five-teacher school could carry 192 to 264 pupils; a six-teacher school could carry 245 to 319 pupils and a three-teacher school could carry 80 to 139 pupils. Would the Minister care to say what might happen to the teachers over and above the number required? Would they be kept on a diocesan panel or moved elsewhere from the diocese or to other parts of the country?

Mr. Colley

They would be kept, not only within the diocese, but actually very much closer to their base than even the boundary of the diocese.

Mr. Jones

Did I hear the Minister correctly when he said that where there would be only one school in a parish that would be kept in a parish?

Mr. Colley

Yes. There could be, maybe, one exception in the country but generally the answer is yes. There are, in fact, two or three parishes in the country from away back with no school.

Mr. Jones

We can deal with that later.

Vote put and agreed to.