The subject which we are now debating is, I suppose, the most debated subject in this country over the last two years. At symposiums, open houses, teach-ins and what have you, the various aspects of education have been debated very thoroughly. This enormous public interest in the subject of education has, I think, been aroused by the presentation of factual evidence of the social injustices built into our educational system down through the years and of the inadequacy of our system to meet the changing requirements of the 1960's and the 1970's. The result of this public awareness, arising out of this enormous amount of discussion on the subject of education, is that a very suitable climate has now been created for any Minister for Education to embark on progressive schemes to improve our educational system.
We welcome the advances the Minister has made, and we do not hesitate to say the Minister has made great advances in the field of education. We welcome, in the first instance, the provision of additional money for the purpose of educational research. It is important, if we are to keep up our standards, if we are to keep abreast of the changing complexity of the problem of education, that a great deal of time and money be devoted to the subject of research. Indeed, the lack of research down through the years, under native government in particular, has resulted in the adult population leaving Ireland today very ill-equipped to meet the foreigner in this age of mechanisation, in this age of broader horizons and keener competition with our neighbours in other countries.
Our standards are set and, possibly, maintained at university level, but it is at primary level that the foundation of our educational system is laid. Our national school education as such is now found to be no longer adequate to meet the demands of the future. National education will not meet these demands, but it is at that level that the stage is set for further education; it is at that level that the student becomes either well-disposed or ill-disposed to continue within the educational system, that interest in the pursuit of knowledge is aroused and the basic attitude towards education is established.
In order that the teacher may perform this function satisfactorily, it is important that education at the primary level be provided, first of all, in congenial surroundings and in classes of manageable size. These are the two fundamental shortcomings in the primary education system today. The Minister, in the course of his address to us this afternoon referred to the fact that continued efforts were being made to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools, the aim being a figure of 35 pupils per teacher. I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion expressed by the previous speaker, Deputy O'Donnell, that 35 children per teacher was not an adequate ratio, that it should be 30 or less. I agree with his views. Many of our teachers are doing magnificent work in the present situation, fostering critical faculties in our children, arousing their interest in education generally, and for such teachers the work, though arduous, must be very rewarding indeed. However, there are others condemned to teach classes to which the Minister referred today, classes of 40 and well over 40, particularly in our city schools.
I know from speaking to such teachers that all they can hope to achieve for the first year or two of a child's life at school is to get that child, in union with his classmates, to walk properly in a straight line. Is that not a very frustrating situation for a teacher trained and equipped to impart knowledge, to educate children? This is the situation that still obtains, and this is a very vital reason why our primary schools are not performing the functions to which I referred at the outset, that of providing a basic education and of arousing in children an interest in further educational pursuits.
Then there is the question of the structure in which the education is provided. The Minister referred to this matter in his speech here today. A lot of publicity has been given of late to the conditions in our national schools. This is something to which all of us who have been talking on this subject of education have referred repeatedly when the occasion presented itself on this Estimate. It is tragic, and it just should not happen, that children of tender years and, indeed, our teachers are condemned to spend the larger part of their day in surroundings which are a positive hazard to their health.
The Minister referred to the present dispute concerning the conditions obtaining in these schools. On the whole, he has laid the blame on the school managers. I have not seen the circular which was issued to the school managers but I am a member of a local authority and I am familiar with departmental circulars, and because I am a member of a local authority and familiar with departmental circulars, I would need to see this circular to be convinced that all the blame rests with the school managers.
I have no doubt that there are managers, be they few or numerous, who may not be living up to their responsibilities. In every profession there are people—we are all human beings —who will not live up to their responsibilities. In his statement, speaking about schools with a life expectancy of less than five years, the Minister said:
... we told them not to proceed without prior consultation with the Department in any case where due to amalgamation or replacement the life expectancy of the school was less than five years.
He was referring to the satisfactory heating and sanitary systems in schools. He went on to say:
...my Department has never refused a grant for urgent works...
Surely the Minister must concede that heating and the provision of toilet facilities are urgent works. When we consider that five years represents more than half of a child's primary school life, we must surely concede that there is absolutely no point in holding up the provision of toilet facilities and proper heating because of the fact that the school might be amalgamated or replaced by another school in five years time. Five years is a long period of time. It occurs to me that there is some confusion—or perhaps it is a lack of communication between the Department and the school managers —on this issue. The Minister should hold himself responsible for this and ensure that even where a school is to be closed within five years, such urgent works as the provision of toilet facilities and proper heating for the benefit of those who are confined in these schools for several hours are put in hand regardless of the fact that the school is scheduled for closing in a short period of time.
There should be more inspections of primary schools by qualified people from the Department. I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that the number of unfit and insanitary primary schools throughout the country is drastically reduced, not over a period of years but forthwith if possible. These works should be put in hand forthwith and the Minister should ensure that, in the shortest possible time, through his efforts no child is condemned to study and no teacher is condemned to teach in these insanitary hovels—which is the only way I can think of to describe some of the schools we know to be in existence in this country today.
The Minister referred to the annual increase in primary teachers. We all welcome this increase but there are other teachers who might be considered for absorption into the primary schools system. There is the question of the untrained teachers. We were all glad to hear recently that there is a proposal to train these teachers. Some of them are rather concerned at the long time it will take before they are trained. There is an intake of something in the nature of 50 teachers a year. These teachers, realising the space there is in the training colleges, cannot understand why something like four years must elapse before they are all trained. Those who are told they must wait four years cannot understand why they cannot be accommodated in the training colleges in one or two years. I should like to hear from the Minister if there is some reason why all these teachers cannot be trained forthwith. If there is no reason, I suggest that this should be put in hand.
There is also the question of our Montessori and Froebel teachers. They are recognised only for the purpose of teaching mentally handicapped children. We heartily welcome the efforts made by the Minister to provide improved facilities for the teaching of mentally handicapped children. I join with Deputy O'Donnell in saying on behalf of my Party that any effort made to improve the lot of these, the neediest section of our community, will receive our wholehearted support. There are other teachers trained in these methods who have not got a vocation for teaching mentally handicapped children. I have met some of them and talked with them. They are now teaching in private primary schools and receiving appallingly low wages. They contend that they have no vocation for teaching mentally handicapped children.
I do not know how many, but a number of them are contemplating emigrating as a last resort. Whether their numbers are small—and I believe they are—these teachers could be utilised in our larger primary schools for the purpose of reducing the pupil/teacher ratio and also because their more practical methods would be advantageous in the teaching of children with less than average intelligence, emotionally disturbed children, and the doubting Thomases, the children who will not grasp that four fives make 20 unless they see it and who will not grasp that Dublin is the capital of Ireland unless they see Dublin on a map of Ireland.
The methods of these teachers could be utilised for teaching such problem children, if you like to call them that. Their numbers may be small but they would serve to improve the pupil/ teacher ratio which is so drastically inadequate in our larger city schools. Before I leave the question of mentally handicapped children I should like to join with the Minister in congratulating those voluntary organisations who have done so much for mentally handicapped children. They have done magnificent work and they certainly deserve the compliments and gratitude of all of us, and particularly those of us in public life.
There is in our primary schools also a drastic lack of audio and visual aids. The use of these methods of imparting knowledge is best exemplified by the recent success of Buntús Cainte. It may be said that not all of those who watch Buntús Cainte listen to the Irish. They may be looking at the girls or at their mode of attire but to some extent they are absorbing Irish which is the purpose of the programme. Audio and visual aids are vitally important in national schools where we are dealing with little children for whom education has to compete with so many other interesting things in the world today. In the other levels of education something is done about the provision of these aids. Where the lack is most keenly felt is at the primary level where they could be of benefit in the teaching of little children.
Last year speaking on this Estimate I referred to the subject of the teaching of Irish and to the over-emphasis on grammar, reading and writing of Irish at an early age. Irish is an essential subject and, as our national language, must be fostered and helped in every way possible. I concur with those who contend that too much of the school day is devoted to the teaching of Irish without achieving the desired effect, which is proficiency in a spoken language. I do not want to repeat what I said last year on this subject but to emphasise again the need to continue removing the emphasis from reading and writing of Irish in the case of very young children and the placing of emphasis on the speaking of the language.
Involvement of parents in the education of children is vital. Unfortunately, we have a situation brought about in this country in which parents have tended to become involved in the education process only in times of crisis. A committee of parents set up only in times of crisis is not the best thing possible to deal with the crisis. If such committees were set up in normal times when everything was running smoothly then whatever form of crisis did come the committee would be better able to cope with it and find an amicable solution to it. Indeed, this question of involvement of parents in the process of the education of children is an enormous problem. We need only read the booklet by Father Ryan on "Social Dynamite" to realise that the situation to which he refers can be found in every large town and certainly in every city in the country. Parents are victims of the educational system provided down through the years, but they are victims also of policies applied by other departments. Their plight is not exclusively in the province of education. We might include the Department of Local Government, the local authorities, the Department of Social Welfare, and so on, but I think a great deal of field work must be done in the particular area and a great deal of effort must be made to involve parents in the education of their children. Not just when the child reaches the age of leaving the primary school to embark on a secondary or vocational career, but from the moment the child goes to school, there must be involvement of the parents in the child's progress at school.
When referring to the children in the built-up areas and the large housing estates where all incentive to higher education is removed I should refer also to the question of career guidance. We have placed a great deal of emphasis on career guidance at secondary level or, say, at the mid-secondary or mid-vocational level, but I believe that at this stage it comes too late because many parents need assistance when the child is at an earlier age. I believe that career guidance is needed generally at that earlier age and my views are strengthened by the statement made by the Minister on page 23 of his report when he speaks about the fact that comprehensive schools will be few in the future and that an effort will be made to get co-operation between secondary and vocational schools. He says that we still have a long way to go to get complete co-operation between the two post-primary forms of education but that a start has been made. Until we get that co-operation and until we have a fully comprehensive system of post-primary education available to all children the need to have career guidance will arise at an earlier age. That is why the Labour Party always emphasises the need for career guidance at the point when the child leaves the national school and embarks, as most children have to do, on a secondary or vocational school career. If comprehensive education were provided in all areas possibly this need would not arise until the child had reached perhaps the junior level of post-primary education, but until this comprehensive system obtains very many parents will need guidance as to which type of post-primary education is suitable for their children.
We have cynics in regard to education who put forward as the reason for their cynicism the large number of leaving certificate pass holders who cannot secure employment in this country. They point to the child who left school earlier and got a job as against the leaving certificate holder who cannot secure employment of any kind. That leaving certificate holder would not be there if career guidance were available for him before he began his post-primary career. He would probably be directed—I do not say forced—or advised to follow a more technical kind of education which would probably suit his particular talents much better. That is why I think career guidance at that level is of vital importance. In view of what the Minister has to say as regards co-operation between the two forms of post-primary education, I think it will be necessary to provide career guidance for some time to come. I sincerely hope this type of co-operation will be forthcoming in the future and that as time passes the two types of education will be more closely interlinked.
The Minister has said, and we are all very happy to hear it, that 92 per cent of our children are now participating in the free secondary education scheme introduced last September. This has been more than equal to our expectations and we are all very happy that such a large number of schools have opted into the free scheme. There is, of course, still the eight per cent. The Minister may know better than I what are the motives they have for remaining outside the scheme. I suppose there will always be those who wish to remain exclusive but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to something which I hope is very isolated but which I suspect might be happening within the free scheme. This concerns the devious means which can be used, and which I suspect may be used, in isolated cases, by schools within the scheme, to remain socially exclusive. I have heard of a case of one school—I do not wish to generalise if this is not warranted—where places are reserved for sisters or daughters of past pupils thus ensuring that children from all walks of life are not able to come within the scope of the education that school provides. I should like the Minister to ensure that such practices do not continue in a scheme which is State financed.
I welcome the Minister's provision in regard to building grants for secondary schools. Attention was drawn during the year to the practice of secondary schools which acquire money from parents for the purpose of paying for building costs. This practice is best avoided and it can result in very great embarrasment for pupils and for parents who are unable to meet the sum requested. Any effort which the Minister makes to increase these grants is certainly welcome and any effort he makes to ensure that this practice of requesting contributions from parents, who perhaps are unable to pay them, is eliminated will be welcomed by the Labour Party.
The Minister also referred to the free transport scheme. Last year when speaking on this estimate I wholeheartedly welcomed the Minister's scheme for free transport and I stated that I thought that it would work very well particularly in areas where parents had already organised transport for children and perhaps were unable to afford that transport. I hope it will work equally well generally. The Minister has made two statements in the course of a week on free transport. On Thursday last, when replying to a question by Deputy Donegan at column 346, volume 232, of the Official Report he stated that:
The transport scheme being operated under aegis of my Department ensures that every eligible child living three miles or more from the nearest post-primary centre is provided with free transport to that centre.
Today the Minister states that there are 2,500 children for whom free transport has not so far been made available. I accept the Minister's statement today. I was rather surprised at his previous statement because I know that there are children living in rather isolated areas for whom free transport has not yet been introduced and for whom I envisage a great deal of difficulty in this regard.
We have cases of families living perhaps seven or eight miles from the centre of their catchment area, there may perhaps be two families with a total of five, six or seven children attending the secondary school and it has not been found possible to provide transport for them. They may have transport for three miles of that seven or eight miles but they are so isolated that they are still three or four miles distant from the bus service which is operating to that centre. I know of cases of children who, so that they may avail of post-primary education, have to leave school at 12 o'clock each day to avail of a drive home in a local car, otherwise they would have to walk five miles having left the bus. For children of 12 or 13 years of age to do that in winter time is absolutely impossible and something which the parents could not allow. I am told by their teachers that these are very bright children and certainly they are not getting justice under our system when they have to leave school at 12 o'clock each day and so lose a great deal of the subjects which are necessary for them if they are to succeed in their educational pursuits.
Earlier I spoke about the great social problems in some large cities and towns and about the people who are victims of very confused and certainly unchristian thinking and who because they come from certain backgrounds and localities find on the completion of their post-primary education, that they cannot secure posts on equal terms with those people in our society who are luckier. This is a great problem. It is something which does not altogether come within the province of this Department. There is, however, an injustice, or at least there was up to last year, in regard to the operation of something else which is within the Department's province. I refer to the system operated by the Cork City Vocational Education Committee. This committee receives a greater subsidy from the State than does the Cork County Vocational Education Committee by virtue of the fact that on a regional system it takes in children from outside its area.
There was a system obtaining within the committee up to last year whereby a post-leaving certificate secretarial course for girls was, and still is, in operation for the city and county. The method adopted for selection for that course was a rather extraordinary one. Pupils are selected for this course before the leaving certificate results become known. I could understand that this might be necessary but no emphasis was placed on their achievements in the leaving certificate; emphasis seemed to be placed on the replies to questions such as where their fathers worked, or their sisters or their brothers worked. I have every reason to believe this. It would appear extraordinary that those who need help most were the ones who, as a result of that interview, did not get it. Those who would be in a position to pay for this education are the ones who get this education which is subsidised by the State. Those who could not pursue it unless it was subsidised by the State were the ones who were not selected at the interview which I thought placed a lot of stress on the family background of the candidate, although I do not see why it should. If this system is still in operation I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that some more just method of selecting candidates for this course will be adopted in future. Many of the unjust practices operating against people in certain strata of society are outside the Minister's province but if this practice still persists it is within the field of education and I would ask the Minister to ensure that it is discontinued forthwith.
In regard to the free transport scheme which has operated well and which, as the Minister states, has catered for all but 2,500 children outside the three mile limit, I would point out that it is also creating a great deal of confusion. I can understand when I am approached by a parent, who happens to be a widow, in regard to a child who is living just within the three mile limit and, therefore, must pay these greatly increased bus fares, while a child who lives across the road comes from a family whose income must be in the region of £3,000 and because that child attended a school which just happens to be over three miles from his home, the child of the relatively well-off parents has his transport free while the child of the person who cannot afford transport must pay the cost. I know there must be some guideline laid down but it is very difficult to get people to understand that there is no emphasis whatsoever on ability to pay with regard to this free transport scheme. The ideal, of course, is that means tests should not be tolerated at all within the educational system but here we have a geographical means test which seems to operate very unfavourably when we come to thinking in financial terms. The Minister should strive, as soon as it is possible for him to do so, to remove this barrier with regard to transport and to enable children who must avail of a bus service to get to school and who are within the three mile limit to travel free on the bus because as it stands at the moment a great deal of understandable confusion exists in the minds of the people. Those who have to pay feel wronged when they find their better-off neighbours, by virtue of the fact that their children attend a school which is a little further away, qualify.
I spoke last year about the Minister's scheme for free books. This is a part of the Minister's scheme with which I totally disagree. I stated last year that I thought the sum involved was not worth the introduction of a means test at this level. Now that the free books scheme has been in operation I am more convinced than ever that this means test should never have been introduced. Last year the Minister stated that he wanted to avoid a means test. Of course, he has not avoided a means test. In fact, he has made not the headmasters but I would say the social welfare officers the officers to decide whether or not a child is eligible for free books. What is happening in our schools is that headmasters, quite understandably not aware of the financial circumstances of the parents of every child in their schools, are asking those children to bring their medical cards to school to try to ascertain whether or not they are entitled to the supply of free books from the Department. Any means test —if there must be one—should be operated with a certain amount of dignity and discretion. There is no dignity or discretion in this system. It is embarrassing for the headmasters, it is very embarrassing for the parents and, worse than all, it is embarrassing for the children, those children who must produce their medical cards. We all know how children talk at school and what an embarrassment this must be for the children who must avail of this free books scheme.
We have our own problem with regard to this scheme on the County Cork Vocational Education Committee. Having got the Minister's proposals for the operation of the scheme, we foresaw the problem that would arise, the injustice that would arise and we referred the scheme back to the Minister's Department and asked them to reconsider the allocation of free books for all the children within the vocational education system. Some time elapsed and finally we were told that this would not be possible. We now have a situation where some children have been given free books. Some headmasters have given these books freely in anticipation of being recouped. Others have not done so. I hope that will resolve itself but I would once again appeal to the Minister not to persist in applying this means test to the supply of school books. The amount of money involved is, by comparison with the total sum expended on education, generally very small. I feel the price of allowing free books to all children would be a small price to pay for the elimination of this unrest and this class distinction that is being caused.
The Minister stated last year that when his scheme was in operation he would look into the feasibility of providing maintenance grants for some children attending post-primary schools. We know, as Deputy O'Donnell has stated, that there are parents who, with the abolition of fees, with the provision of free transport and free books, are still not financially capable of forgoing the earning power of their children beyond the age of 14 years. We have parents of large families growing up and costing naturally more than they cost the previous year, placed in a position where they are existing until their eldest child can go out and earn a living and subsidise the family income. These people, and there are many of them, cannot avail of any scheme of free education without the advantage of maintenance grants. Since the publication of our document on education this has been a basic issue with us. Knowing that so many of our people are not capable of availing of the incentives to education that are available without some compensation being made to them to enable them to forgo the earning power of their families, we believe that maintenance grants are essential if education beyond the primary level is to be available to all our children. Last year the Minister acknowledged that this need existed and he promised that when this scheme was in operation he would examine this particular aspect of the matter. I hope that the Minister has kept that promise. To date he has not announced that he intends to do anything about the provision of maintenance grants but I hope that at least the matter is still being pursued and that it is something that will come in the next school year; that the provision of maintenance grants will be introduced to enable the children of very many of our parents who could not otherwise do so to avail of this otherwise free scheme of post-primary education.
I would ask the Minister—and this is something I feel rather strongly about—to include elocution in the subjects covered. Schools which employ teachers for the purpose of teaching elocution must bear the full cost of the salary of those teachers. I feel elocution should be included as a subject in all our secondary schools. It is a great leveller. It is something which, I think, children are entitled to avail of and it is something which at present can only be availed of by those who can afford to pay for it. I feel strongly about this question and I would ask the Minister to have teachers of elocution in the schools which have opted for his scheme recognised for incremental purposes by the Department.
We are all happy to hear of the proposal to erect colleges of technology. Like Deputy O'Donnell, we are all confused to an extent about the actual purposes these colleges will serve. The Minister explained today that these colleges will remain adaptable for particular purposes so as to cater for such emergencies as may arise and that their purpose is that they be adaptable and so constituted that they would constantly meet the economic need of the community.
I would ask the Minister, with regard to these regional technical colleges, has he any doubt about their staffing. In recent weeks I have seen a large number of advertisements for staff for the College of Technology in Dublin and I wondered why there was such a big demand for staff. Perhaps it is due to an expansion of the number of students availing of this type of education but having regard to the appearance of these advertisements at this time of the year, I wondered if difficulty was being experienced in procuring staff for the colleges. I hope that my fears in this respect are not well founded and that no problem will arise.
I concur with the views of the previous speaker with regard to the setting up of new colleges. We in the Labour Party have condemned the introduction of a two-tier system of higher education and particularly the suggestion that teacher-training should be allied to these new colleges. Candidates who qualify for teacher-training have a very high standard of education and persons of that standard would be an asset to a university. I cannot understand the suggestion that teacher-training would be allied to the new colleges.
In the whole field of higher education there is an enormous problem principally with regard to under-financing. We have discovered very recently how bereft of funds our universities are. Without making any reference to proposed mergers or any matter which might be sub judice at the moment, we cannot leave this Estimate without referring to the gross lack of funds within the universities. In Britain, the investment per pupil in university education is at least three times the investment in this country. Of course, in Britain, most university students are scholarship holders and have maintenance grants. There is an enormous gap between the endowment per pupil in Britain, our nearest neighbour, and the endowment here.
There is the very big problem highlighted by the Report of the Commission on Higher Education of the staff-student ratio in our universities. The Commission recommended a staff-student ratio of 12 to one while it is over 20 to one at the moment. Documentation which we have received either today or yesterday from Galway University indicates that that university has only one-third of the staff required to achieve the ratio recommended by the Commission. They would need an increase of 125 in staff to reach the recommended ratio and they estimate the cost at £325,000 per annum which is almost as much again as the total current endowment to Galway University. These figures indicate the enormous problems that exist with regard to university education.
Undoubtedly university education is a very expensive type of education and the Commission have rightly recommended that it is a system in which standards must be maintained. We must ensure that the best students enter the universities. Down through the years that has not been the case. As the previous speaker has said, the criterion has been ability to pay rather than ability to benefit. An extension of scholarships will ensure a higher entrance level. This will mean that in future the emphasis will be on ability to benefit rather than ability to pay. Maintenance grants are a very vital matter at this level. The money available should be utilised to the best advantage of the nation and that can be done only by ensuring that the pupils receiving university education are those best equipped to benefit by it, regardless of family finances.
We have been hoping for some announcement with regard to making university education available to a wider section of the community. So far no such announcement has been made. It is something to which we look forward. The system which did obtain with regard to post-primary education still obtains with regard to higher education, that is, a system which gives privilege on the basis of ability to pay rather than ability to benefit. This cannot be allowed to continue. Our concepts of social justice in 1968 would dictate that this situation cannot continue. Our survival as a nation depends on its immediate removal and the opening up of all avenues of higher education to children from every stratum of society who can benefit from it.
As I said at the outset, the Minister has done a great deal for education— we concede him that—but a great deal remains to be done. The two big issues at post-primary level are the elimination of the means test in regard to the provision of free books and the provision of maintenance grants for the needier sections of the community. The important issue at post-secondary level is the opening up of university education to all who can benefit from it. These are two aspects to which we hope the Minister will give his attention in the months ahead. We shall welcome wholeheartedly any proposal to implement these very vital aspects of our policy. Any proposal that the Minister introduces will have our wholehearted support. We look forward to hearing the Minister announce —perhaps in his reply to this debate but certainly within a very short space of time—some concrete and useful proposals to eliminate the injustices that still prevail in our system of education.
