Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Apr 1974

Vol. 271 No. 11

Adjournment Debate: Mayo School.

Mr. Calleary

I should like to thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me an opportunity of raising the subject matter of Question No. 10 on today's Order Paper. It concerns the future of Creevagh National School. I do this for a number of reasons and with your permission, I will elaborate on them. On my own behalf and on that of the parents in the area I should like to protest most vehemently at the manner in which the decision to close this school was arrived at.

It would appear that this was done against all the trends. If I give a little of the background it might help the House to understand why the people of this area regard the closure as one which came not from the Department of Education but because of external influences. Some years ago a meeting was held to decide the future of this school. At that time it was a one-teacher school. Certain decisions were arrived at. The people were satisfied and I think the Department's officials were satisfied. Since then it has become a two-teacher school. This happened some months ago. I question therefore the answer which the Minister gave today when he said:

I have reviewed the position as regards Creevagh National School and I am satisfied that the best interests of the children concerned would be served by its amalgamation with Carrowmore National School in the Carrowmore school to form a three-teacher school unit.

There are a steady number of pupils on the roll. It is around 36 or 37. Industrial expansion has already started in this area.

The Minister is aware of the almost complete opposition by the parents and householders in the area to the closure of the school. I understand that a letter was sent by the parents' association two years ago. I gave the Minister a copy of this letter, from which I will now quote:

We, the people of Creevagh School area expect that the money you made available for the abovementioned school will be spent on same. We understand that you have withdrawn the money at the request of the Manager. This request is the manager's own and not the wishes of the parents as there was no consultation whatsoever with the parents. As regards amalgamation the parents will not allow their children to be taken to Carrowmore National School or any other school. Please find attached the signatures of the parents and householders of the area attached the signatures of the area who are opposed to amalgamation.

The parents complain about the complete lack of consultation with them in this matter, despite the guarantee given by the Minister in this House during his speech when he introduced the Estimate for his Department for the financial year 1973-74. I will quote an extract from that speech where the Minister said:

There will, of course, be consultation and the views and opinions of those who may be opposed to the proposed closing of a small school will receive the fullest consideration.

The parents of pupils attending Creevagh school were not consulted. I would question the reason for that. It is all the more strange that on the 7th November, 1973, in reply to a question of mine on this particular school the Minister said:

My Department are sanctioning a grant for the provision of water-flushed sanitation, thermal storage heating and fluorescent lighting at Creevagh National School. The Office of Public Works are being asked to ensure that the works are carried out as soon as possible.

I know that plans were prepared for this school. I also know that a well-boring contractor actually came to the site but was not allowed to proceed with the work.

I should like to ask the House whether the view of one particular individual or the views of the parents of the area should be the prime consideration in this matter The parents of the area and myself are entitled to an explanation why the decision was changed. I would ask the Minister about this. He said in the House today that no pressures were used. I am certain that if the Minister knew the background of this dispute as I do he would be satisfied that there was pressure. Which is paramount—the wishes of the parents or the wishes of an individual?

Even if a transfer to Carrowmore school takes place I regret to tell the Minister that it will be bitterly opposed by the parents. There would be considerable expense in providing extra accommodation at Carrowmore school. In reply to a supplementary question today the Minister said that he felt that in the long term a central school which would take in the pupils of Creevagh, Carrowmore and Banagher would be the ideal solution. I question this and so will the parents in the Banagher area, especially as the school in Banagher is a new school. It is approximately eight years old. I question it on the grounds that there is no demand from the parents for it, and also on the grounds that, if these amalgamations were to occur, they would be occuring in the wrong places and that it is now too late to amalgamate.

Pupils are now coming to Creevagh from Killian which is some miles north of Creevagh. It would appear that they will now have to go some extra miles to Carrowmore. The Minister will have to provide transport. At Carrowmore he will have to provide not only the additional classrooms which will be necessary but also an assembly hall which could be used by the pupils to have meals. Above all the Minister and I are faced in this situation with having to decide—and I have repeating this—whether the parents wishes as expressed in the letter to the Minister and by the fact that they have signed their names to a document or the wishes of one man are to prevail in this case.

I cannot see why the decision arrived at when Creevagh was a single-teacher school should be changed now that it is a two-teacher school, one appointed some months ago only. I am convinced, and I will always remain convinced no matter what the Minister's decision is, that at the end of January the Department was visited by the person who evidently succeeded in putting his views across and having them accepted by the Department over the views of the parents. I cannot accept this. On that basis, and the basis of the points I have outlined, I would ask the Minister and the Department to seriously reconsider the decision which has been taken and to give the children in this area the same chance as the children in a number of small schools got since the Minister came into office. The parents feel they are entitled to the same consideration as has been shown to a number of schools in Kerry and Galway. They feel they know what is best for their children and that they know where their children will get the best education.

I would ask the Minister to consider one other point. Even though they are in the same parish, the Minister is amalgamating two different types of people. The people from the Creevagh area are fishermen, always have been, and always will be. Their children are now to be sent to a school in an area where the predominant occupation of the parents is farming. A meeting was held which was attended by Deputy Gallagher, Senator O'Toole and myself a few weeks ago, and that meeting was unanimous that Creevagh should remain open. All I can do is to add my voice to the voices of those who wrote to the Minister and who signed the letter he received. I would ask the Minister to give these people the same rights as have been extended to others.

Minister for Education (Mr. R. Burke)

I want to thank Deputy Calleary for the reasonableness of the case he has just made and for the tone of his contribution which was for me a very refreshing change from other Adjournment Debates which I attended here, particularly in the middle of last year. He quoted from a speech I made on the Estimate for the Department of Education in the latter part of 1973. He did not refer to some of the reasons which I gave in the educational area about the general desirability, if it can be brought about, of having larger central units where possible because of the educational advantages for the pupils in having three or four teachers to teach the children in these schools. In introducing my Estimate I explained my policy on small schools and I can do no better than to repeat what I said. I said:

...in ordinary circumstances no further one-teacher or two-teacher schools will be built, either in replacement of existing schools or as new schools. Neither will grants be made for extensive reconstruction or improvement of such small schools. In using the funds which the Dáil will make available for school buildings and equipment from year to year we must aim at securing the best educational advantages for the individual community concerned in each school building project and for the country as a whole. We must avoid, to the greatest extent possible, deliberate expenditure on projects which would only preserve existing disadvantages or even create further disadvantages from the educational point of view. There will, of course, be consultation, and the views and opinions of those who may be opposed to the proposed closing of a small school will recieve the fullest consideration. There may be occasions when I shall be forced to take a decision which will not be generally popular, but no decision will be taken arbitrarily, without the fullest weighing of all the factors involved.

The Deputy was present in the Dáil this afternoon when I replied to his question. The key word in the reply was "reviewed". I said then and I repeat now that the question has been reviewed. I want to explain to the Deputy in some detail what is involved here.

The position is that the Creevagh school is an old building. It was recommended for replacement by the Office of Public Works in 1958. The school was built, I think, in 1895. A proposal for the amalgamation of Creevagh with Carrowmore National School was put to the school manager in 1966. This was in line with the policy of centralisation of small schools to form larger and more effective teaching units. Various factors delayed the provision of the extra accommodation needed at Carrowmore school to cater for the Creevagh pupils. A minor scheme of essential repairs was carried out to the Creevagh school in 1971 to render it habitable for a further limited period.

The Deputy can rest assured that I have reviewed the situation. He spoke earlier today about pressures and I resisted the imputation of pressure to the extent that there was any suggestion that the pressures were improper. The Deputy will accept— and I am not expressing any criticism of him—that he himself and other public representatives exerted pressure on the Department of Education. This is only right and proper; this is what Deputies are there for. I think it would be improper to suggest that that kind of pressure is of a more benign or meritorious kind than representations received from other individuals or groups of individuals. I do not deny for a moment that I have received representations and on foot of those representations, I have made a review of the case. Having reviewed the case, I am fully satisfied that the amalgamation of these schools, to form a three-teacher school, would be in the best interests of the children concerned. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, there is no suggestion that the amalgamation into a three-teacher school is anything other than an interim solution. The Deputy and other public representatives may not be aware— indeed, the public may not be aware—that in Creevagh and Carrowmore schools the school population—and, to my knowledge, these facts are accurate; the projections are accurate—will, in a few years, drop to the point where only one teacher will be warranted in either Creevagh or Carrowmore. So, even if they were amalgamated now, as a permanent solution, the population would not warrant three teachers in a few years time. That is why the long term policy of the Department is to have a central school, the population of which would warrant a greater number of teachers than would be warranted even in this interim solution.

I know that the Deputy and other representatives have pointed out—indeed, I read it in the papers—references to industrial developments in Killala and places adjacent. To my present knowledge there is no indication, from the figures available to me, that this is going to increase substantially the population of the area. And, if it is going to increase the population, it is not necessarily in these particular areas. I would, therefore, put it to the Deputy that, having reviewed the situation, taking into account the views of all the persons concerned——

Mr. Calleary

Except the parents.

Mr. R. Burke

——I have received the views of all the persons concerned—that, on educational grounds, having regard to the interests of the pupils, having regard to the fact that the school population is going to drop to the point——

Mr. Calleary

It is not.

Mr. R. Burke

——where only one teacher will be warranted in these schools in the fairly near future——

Mr. Calleary

The Minister's records have been proved wrong already.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has had his opportunity and a much longer period in which to make his case than has the Minister to reply.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy was very restrained in putting his case. I well acknowledge that. I want to say to him that the figures and advice available to me are that, on present trends, we would not be justified in expending the substantial amount of money he thinks should be expended in relation to the small school at Creevagh which, in the fairly near future—in a matter of a couple of years—will not warrant even two teachers. These are the facts as available to me. On these facts, I have reviewed the situation and come to this decision. I cannot explain it any further than that. I have said that the decision of the Department, in the long term, is that the best interests of the area would be served by setting up a central school; that the three-teacher arrangement for Carrowmore is an interim one only.

We cannot predict the future. I think the best solution at this point in time is to be set up a three-teacher school at Carrowmore. We will then await future development to see what further steps, if any, are needed. That is the reason why the matter was reviewed. That is the reason why I gave the Deputy the answer I did today. I think the case is reasonable. I acknowledge that he has made representations; so have other public representations; so have the parents, the manager and the interests concerned. I stand over my decision.

Mr. Calleary

A Cheann Comhairle, may I put one more point to the Minister?

An Ceann Comhairle

Has the Deputy a question?

Mr. Calleary

Would the Minister accept that the figures projected for Creevagh have been proved wrong already in that the Department of Education estimated that there would be only 22 pupils attending Creevagh and there are now actually 37? On that basis would be accept that the information he has been given for the next couple of years would be wrong also? The parents in Creevagh are quite satisfied—and they know because they have actually counted the children there coming up to school-going age—they will have sufficient there for at least five——

An Ceann Comhairle

I gave the Deputy permission to ask a question but he ought not abuse that privilege now.

Mr. Calleary

The parents were the only people who were not consulted. I think they should have been consulted and I am asking the Minister now to have consultation with them.

Mr. R. Burke

In reply to the Deputy's latest question I would say to him, even in a three-teacher school, the number of pupils attending school will just about warrant three teachers and not for a very long period; that there is a declining population in this area and that we would not be justified in keeping two separate schools going in the area. If the population were suddenly to explode and this information were to be made available to me then a new situation would arise. But my present information is that the school-going population in Creevagh would justify three teachers in the immediate future; that the population is dropping and would not justify the keeping open of two schools, as the Deputy suggests. I would repeat that I think it is a good decision.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. Friday, 5th April, 1974.