We are debating here today our Programme for Action in Education for the next four years. It is both timely and apt that we should have such a programme and important that this House should consider it. There has been a widespread demand for a clearly-charted sense of direction, a clearing of our minds regarding priorities and where we are going. Education has been characterised for too long by ad hoc decision-making and short-term action.
During the early months of 1983, I was constantly told that a plan was needed, and that this was particularly so given that resources were scarce and that every item of expenditure was being scrutinised. The call was to clarify the issues, define the targets and set the goals. We now have such a plan. It is not a wish-list of hopes, it is all about action.
Unlike the White Paper of December 1980 this programme deals in specific proposals which can and will be acted upon over the next four years. In fact, action has already started. The Estimates for 1984 include specific measures, decided in anticipation of and in the knowledge of what the action programme would contain. Furthermore, there is great activity at present within my Department with regard to implementing the various items to be acted upon. Some can be done quickly, others more slowly. Some require detailed discussion and consultation and this will be carried out. The Special Working Party in my Department who helped me to draw up the programme have now turned their attention to the plan's implementation. This working group will ensure that appropriate action is taken in order to put in train each of the commitments outlined in the programme.
To be successful, all concerned in education must also play their part as without the maximum co-operation it will not be possible to achieve our goals. This is extremely important. We must all share in common purposes so that our young people may gain the greatest benefit possible. To this end we must ensure that sectional interests are not allowed to dictate events. Our collective efforts must avoid this possibility at all costs.
The House will recall that when introducing the Estimates for my Department last June I said that I would be happy to afford the House an opportunity of debating the Programme for Action when available. I gladly fulfil that promise today. I am glad for two reasons. First, the programme is a precise, realistic and educationally-sound document. It has generally been welcomed as such by the various educational interests. Second, it represents the culmination of much work and extensive consultation.
Before I treat in specific terms of the major components of the programme, however, I want to refer to a change in emphasis in financial policy for the educational services.
We all remember the furore which the Opposition created last year over the economies which had to be made in the educational services. In all, a sum of £14.0 million approximately was saved. What did these measures do? I was enabled to provide for the educational services this year without recourse to further economy measures. More importantly, I was able to order, in financial terms, my priorities and to launch the Programme for Action.
The Government were able to make available an additional £7 million approximately to improve the capitation grants for national schools and the grant to secondary schools in lieu of school fees, to initiate a programme for the disadvantaged and to accelerate the school building programme for national schools.
It is a truism to say that when resources are scarce the concept of choice arises. In the context of scarce resources if a service is to be funded it must be done at the expense of another perhaps equally meritorious service. There will never be enough money for education to satisfy all. Therefore, priorities must be ordered. That is precisely what I have done and been enabled to do as a result of last year's economies. I have transferred resources so as to enable me to implement what I regard as my main priority — the care of the disadvantaged. I propose to come back later to this matter of the transfer of resources.
For a moment, however, let me look at the economy measures which were necessary last year. For the record again, I have to say that on becoming Minister for Education I was handed a whole series of cuts determined by the previous Government. My Government examined them as sensitively and as flexibly as possible. Because of our scale of priorities and concern for the socially and economically deprived we modified a number of them. The former Government's proposed cut-back in remedial teaching in national schools was restored. Free transport was restored to pupils whose parents possessed medical cards. The less-well-off in our post-primary schools were given relief from the increase in examination fees.
These measures can in no way be interpreted as a climb down by me or the Government and it was quite wrong of the Opposition to attempt to interpret them in such a way. They represent in tangible form our concern and our care that the disadvantaged children in our society be given every opportunity to advance in the educational system. Such sensitivity stands out in stark contrast to the insensitive approach by the former Administration.
I have already said that the economy measures of last year enabled me to order my priorities and to start the action programme this year. I want to go further than that. At a time when resources for education are scarce I want to ensure that the educational services are cost efficient and cost effective.
I want to look at the expenditure on all our services. If wastage can be identified, I want it eliminated. I want, where possible, to transfer resources to meet the most pressing of our problems. In other words, on behalf of the taxpayer, I want to get the best possible value for money, to extend the best possible education to as many children as possible.
A major area we are examining urgently is that of the rationalisation and co-ordination of facilities at second-level. Not alone must I do so in the interest of better value for money but, more importantly, from the point of view of providing the best possible level of facilities in any given centre.
Educational improvements can be achieved through a more effective and cost efficient use of resources. I accept, of course, that this is a most sensitive area. It demands, in the first instance, full consultation with the major interests at national level.
As stated in the programme, I am arranging for my Department to initiate discussions as speedily as possible. In this regard all traditions must be respected. A number of these traditions go back a long way in our educational history. I will respect those traditions. Having said that, I must make the point, however, that given a typical situation of two or three small post-primary schools in a given centre — all requiring replacement — it does not make either educational or financial sense to perpetuate that system. There should in such circumstances be a coming together of the school authorities and the seeking of a consensus on the form of a unitary school and management structure for the area. Such is clearly in the educational and social interests of the pupils. I intend to pursue this objective as best I can. I hope I will have the co-operation of all the major educational interests in this objective. In addition, I will also press for the co-ordination of facilities in existing centres where rebuilding is not in question.
All of us involved in education — managers, teachers, parents, Minister and Department — are there for one purpose, namely, providing the best possible education and facilities for our young people. I am responsible on behalf of the Government, through the Oireachtas, to the people for educational policy and its execution. I cannot and do not intend to shirk that responsibility.
In rationalising our post-primary facilities difficult decisions may have to be taken by me in individual cases. It is my hope that my guiding principle — the best interests of our pupils — will be respected as the objective basis on which any decision will be made. In this I am confident that I will have much co-operation and understanding from all in whatever lies ahead in this regard.
At this stage, I want to refer to the principles underlying the Programme for Action. I see the educational system enabling all citizens to have access to an education relevant to their needs, abilities and aptitudes. The system requires updating on a continuing basis to take account of change, the development in technology and changing employment patterns.
The programme seeks to make continuing education available for all and to equalise opportunities between the various socio-economic groups and between the sexes. It postulates positive discrimination in favour of the educationally disadvantaged. It sees the development and flowering of our linguistic and cultural heritage. Finally, it seeks to achieve a full partnership between all interests involved by way of consultation and maximum delegation of responsibility and authority.
From those principles flow the programmes' proposals. In addition, they order my own and the Government's priorities. Our actions hitherto point the way towards our main priority — the care of the disadvantaged. As the programme states, education cannot, by itself, redress the social imbalances in our society but it certainly has a major role to play.
We must do all in our power to remove barriers to equality of opportunity facing the educationally, socially and economically deprived. In this regard the period of compulsory education merits special attention. It is the base of the educational pyramid. It is at this initial stage of the education process that positive discriminatory action must begin. My Government have this year taken the initial step by allocating £500,000 to this area. It is our intention to build on that each year over the next four years, as resources permit.
Initially the attention will be focussed on the major urban centres — Dublin, Cork and Limerick. It is recognised, however, that other areas, including rural centres, must receive attention in due course.
Access at every rung of the education ladder must be open to all. Special care must be taken of the students who drop out before the end of compulsory schooling. The next category is those who drop out at the end of the compulsory cycle. Then there is the student of average or less than average ability who completes the Intermediate Certificate Course and who requires alternative courses at the Leaving Certificate cycle.
These then are the young persons most in need of assistance. They will be our special concern over the next four years. That is not to say, of course, that the third-level student is to be neglected; far from it. The Government's objective is to provide third-level education for all those capable of benefiting from it. What we want to ensure is that every child can be given the opportunity of reaching the highest rung of the education ladder. That is the essential task.
I am firmly convinced that good relations, leading to a realistic partnership, are essential among the various educational interests. I attach great importance to this factor. The more we work together and co-operate in harmony, the more effective our educational system will be. For my part, I am committed to a greater delegation of authority and responsibility. I am also committed to achieving a partnership with all interests involved in the educational process.
Achieving this ideal requires a great degree of trust, an avoidance of needless confrontation and a desire to co-operate. The less public confrontation there is, the better for the educational system. It is my earnest hope that a harmonious relationship between all interests will be achieved.
I do not intend to go through the programme and highlight all its proposals. I do, however, wish to refer to some of the specific provisions.
The establishment of the Curriculum and Examinations Board represents one of the most important initiatives ever taken in Irish education. The 1980 White Paper envisaged a curriculum council.
The board now set up and due to be established statutorily in two years time is a major advance on that proposal because it brings together the two very important aspects of post-primary education — curriculum and examinations. Too often in the past these matters have been considered in isolation from one another. This is not the way things should be, as there is a very real danger that the influence of examinations can become much too dominant and limiting on teaching.
I am determined to give maximum support to the board and to allow it the greatest possible freedom in its operation. Its members have been carefully chosen to represent a wide range of educational interests. Already the board has set about establishing committees to assist in its work. These committees are a vehicle through which teachers and other professional interests can be fully involved in the board's work.
The establishment of the board does not mean of course that my Department will no longer have a role to play in educational policy formulation. Far from it, the Department, particularly the inspectorates, will be in an even stronger position to bring forward new thinking and to establish closer working links with schools.
The board, in association with my Department, will work as a close partnership in which no voice will dominate — in the true spirit of democracy.
One important point is addressed in the Action Programme. This refers to the introduction of a flexibility in the rules under which schools operate so that they can be free to adapt curricula more closely to local needs. I believe that this new flexible approach will be greatly welcomed by school authorities.
The terms of reference of the curriculum and examination board assign to it major tasks in relation to reforming the examination system. In particular, the board has been asked to bring forward a new unified junior cycle assessment system to replace the intermediate and group certificate examinations. The aim is to enable all pupils to have a certification of their achievements available to them at the end of the period of compulsory schooling. In the past, too many young people left school without any formal qualification. This has been a serious weakness in the system which must be redressed.
It is extremely important that the examination system is appropriate to pupils across the whole ability range. It is also vital to ensure that all pupils achieve an adequate standard in basic functional literacy and numeracy.
At senior cycle level the Curriculum and Examinations Board has two major jobs to do immediately. The first relates to a reform of the leaving certificate examination to make it a better measure of general education and in this regard to consider the feasibility and desirability of introducing a separate assessment system for selection for entry to third level degree courses.
The second concerns the development of alternative senior cycle courses, more closely related to the world of work, including the extension of pre-employment courses to selected secondary schools. In this respect the proposals to achieve a greater co-ordination between education and training programmes are of particular relevance.
Our young people must be enabled to achieve their full potential. The individual's qualities — spiritual, moral, intellectual, aesthetic and physical — must be developed. On leaving school, the young person should have a trained mind, an openness to change and acceptable social skills. What takes place within the four walls of the classroom determines in large part to what extent these objectives are achieved. This, in turn, hinges on the quality and professionalism of the teacher.
We are fortunate in this country that we have a highly trained and dedicated cadre of teachers. I want to assist that professionalism by giving special attention to their pre-service and in-service training. I am aware that for a number of years in-service training of teachers has been neglected. Conscious as I am of the fundamental importance of the teacher within the classroom, I intend to develop significantly the in-service training of teachers. A start has been made this year, a sum of £287,000 has been made available for in-service courses this year compared with £141,000 last year — an increase of over 100 per cent.
At this point I want to make a special reference to sexism and sex stereotyping. Discussions on sexism and sex stereotyping sometimes provoke a hostile reaction among people whose understanding of these terms is limited. Let me be quite clear that in speaking of these matters in connection with education what I am referring to is at the core and centre of educational policy, that of redressing as far as possible any inequalities of opportunity that occur within the system, and secondly, that of preparing our young people, all of our young people, for the demands which adult life is going to make on them.
Nobody in education would consciously set out to discriminate against girls, to limit their horizons, to afford them lesser chances of full participation in adult life as professionals and as citizens. Nevertheless this happens to a substantial extent by virtue of the survival of traditional attitudes depicting in school texts a more limited role for women in society by virtue of traditional structures and provisions which militate against the opening up of a full range of subjects and of career prospects to girls.
It is a matter of deep concern at any time because apart from being inherently wrong, no country can afford to neglect the development of half of its talent. It becomes a matter of even greater concern when many of the jobs which were traditionally filled by women are rapidly disappearing with the advance of technology.
The Programme for Action sets out a strategy which will help to correct these defects in our educational system. At the attitudinal level much of this strategy consists of convincing parents, educators, publishers and pupils themselves, both boys and girls, that they are not well served by the maintenance of these traditional attitudes.
It is proposed to deal with the topic of sexism as a component of in-service courses for teachers. Discussions are planned with publishers of school texts and the Curriculum and Examinations Board has a specific remit to ensure that sexism/sex stereotyping is not reflected in the curriculum set down for the schools.
Regional seminars will be held during the present year aimed at making school managers and teachers more aware of all aspects of differentiation based on sex within the school situation and in particular in relation to curricular provision and subject choice. Discussions will be undertaken with school management authorities with a view to ensuring that women will be adequately represented on selection boards for posts within the educational service.
Co-operation between boys' and girls' schools has in many areas contributed to an enlargement of curricular provision and subject choice. School authorities will be encouraged to extend such co-operation also as a means of securing a better preparation for both boys and girls for the challenges of adult life.
I am confident that much good-will exists within the education sector and that the harnessing of this good-will will produce positive action in the direction of eliminating sexism and sex stereotyping in our educational system.
I believe that educating boys and girls together is more in keeping with the concept of equality between the sexes and provides a better basis for developing co-operative but equal roles for men and women in adult life. There is no question, however, of forcing co-education on people. The views of parents must be respected and the practical difficulties, particularly in the case of large urban schools, have to be reckoned with. But proposals for new schools on a co-educational basis will be encouraged and the reorganisation of school provision on that basis will be facilitated.
In this regard it may not be generally appreciated how much co-education there is already in our system. In national schools more than half the pupils are in co-educational schools. In all 75 per cent of national schools are co-educational. At the second level roughly half of the schools are co-educational and account for about half of the pupils.
The role of parents as the primary educators of their children is enshrined in our Constitution. None of us needs to be reminded of the efforts and the sacrifices which Irish parents have made down the years for the education of their children, but because they were not organised as such, parents have not been in a position to make their full contribution to discussion and decision-making in education. I believe that parents have a central role to play and a special wisdom to contribute in all matters relating to the education of their children. In drawing up the Programme for Action different parent groups were consulted and the proposals they put forward were taken into account.
I have stressed in the programme the need for parents to organise themselves into a representative parents' council. I have promised that I shall facilitate the setting up of such a council in any way that I can, and that I shall consult the council when established on matters relating to education.
In the interim, as an earnest of my intention, I have nominated a parent representative to the Curriculum and Examinations Board. Discussions are also taking place with a view to having parents represented on the boards of management of comprehensive schools, as is already the case in community schools.
Primary education is the most fundamental of all our educational provision. It is in our 3,400 national schools throughout the country that the majority of our children first learn to socialise with their peers, first become aware of the wider world beyond the home, acquire the skills basic to living and to further learning.
It is during this period of primary schooling that their characters and attitudes are developed and formed, that they inherit the value systems of our civilisation. It is during this period, too, as recent studies have shown, that their future life's chances are, to a very large degree, determined.
The Programme for Action attaches a major priority to the funding of national schools in the allocation of resources available for education. It does so because the Government recognise the importance of a proper environment, conducive to learning, for the children of this country.
While chalk, talk and cornflakes boxes still have their uses, it is abundantly clear that the resources required for proper teaching and learning are becoming sophisticated and expensive. It is essential that our national schools be equipped and maintained to the best possible extent which our resources will allow.
In this connection I would wish to pay tribute to the managerial authorities and local communities who share with the State the burden of financing the operational costs of our national school system. The inflationary increase in such costs in recent years have left many school boards of management in positions of difficulty in covering the basics of heating, cleaning and lighting. Maintenance and the acquisition of requisities, learning aids and equipment have had, in many cases, to be postponed, or have had to depend on the further voluntary efforts of the community.
In such a situation, the schools in the poorer and disadvantaged areas are the ones which suffer most. They are the least able to meet, let alone supplement, the basic local contribution.
It is appropriate, then, that the first proposal of the action programme to be implemented in the provisions for 1984, was the granting of a substantial increase of £4 in the capitation grant to national schools, the largest single increase since such grants were established in 1975-76. There is a special provision, too, of some £500,000 in the present year, to give extra aid to schools which cater for a high proportion of disadvantaged children or for children with special educational needs.
The programme also proposes that an examination be carried out as to whether the present system of funding based totally on enrolments can deal adequately with the variety of changing circumstances found in national schools. This examination will be undertaken without delay.
An important policy initiative of all Governments over the past decade has been the progressive improvement of pupil/teacher ratio in national schools, as a result of which pupil/teacher ratio and average class size were substantially reduced. The estimated overall pupil/teacher ratio for January 1983 was 27.33:1 and the average class size for ordinary classes was 30.57. The pupil/teacher ratio in Ireland is considered high by comparison to that obtaining in our neighbouring island and in most countries of the European Community. What is frequently overlooked in these comparisons is that improvements were achieved in many of these countries by simply maintaining teacher numbers at a time of falling enrolments. Improvements here in our country, by contrast, have had to be achieved at a time of growing pupil numbers and at very considerable extra cost to the taxpayer as numbers of teachers were increased.
The Vote for Primary Education reflects very strongly the labour-intensive nature of our primary education service. In the Estimates for the Public Services for 1984, for example, from a total of approximately £349 million, in the Vote for Primary Education, more than £268 million is accounted for by teachers' salaries. When capital is excluded, a staggering 94.9 per cent of the Vote is accounted for by pay and superannuation provision.
A reduction of one point in the pupil/teacher ratio, from 27.33:1 to 26.33:1 would entail an estimated 775 teaching posts and add some £7 million annually to the salaries bill. It is against this background that the Programme for Action makes its proposals in respect of improvements in the teaching service.
When resources are scarce it makes educational, as well as economic sense to assign them to areas of greatest need. While not losing sight of the objective of improvement in the overall pupil/teacher ratio as soon as financial circumstances permit, the programme proposes to allocate such extra teaching resources as become available to the alleviation of educational disadvantage and to the remedying of difficulties which certain pupils experience in acquiring the basic literacy and numeracy skills. A concerted effort in this direction will, with the co-operation of teachers, school authorities and my Department, secure a more certain educational future for the children in question and contribute significantly to their life chances.
It would be an extremely difficult task to put an exact capital value on our total stock of national schools throughout the country. It is possible to estimate that the replacement value of the stock at current prices would be of the order of £1,000 million. Since 1976, more than £155 million has been spent on grant-aiding the building and improvement of national schools.
Manifestly then, the maintenance and improvement of the existing school stock, as well as the planning for replacement and for the provision of new schools has significant economic and financial implications.
The Programme for Action addresses these implications. It proposes to examine the existing financial arrangements for the maintenance of national schools so as to ensure that internal and external painting, which helps to extend the useful life of the buildings, as well as keeping them in a condition appropriate to an educational environment, is carried out on a regular basis.
Refinement in the planning of school provision, in the light of recent information on the peaking of demand for national school places, is envisaged, as well as exercises in the joint planning of primary and post-primary school facilities so as to extend the optimum usage of school buildings.
These developments, as well as improvements of a practical nature in the administration of the national schools building programme will be facilitated by the Government's decision to transfer responsibility for the technical aspects of this programme from the Office of Public Works to the Department of Education. Discussions are taking place at official level with a view to the implementation of this decision at the earliest possible date.
The Government are concerned that our national school buildings should cater adequately for the curricular and environmental requirements of our school-going population. An expression of this concern was the voting in the context of the budget of an extra £2.0 million for the improvement and extension of national schools, over and above that provided for primary school building in the Estimates for the Public Services, 1984.
A policy of amalgamation of smaller national schools was pursued vigorously from the mid-sixties to the mid-seventies. While this policy brought about a significant reduction in the number of smaller schools, a substantial proportion, more than 30 per cent, of our national schools were still, in 1981-82, of the one teacher, or two teacher category.
The policy of amalgamation is essentially educationally derived, in that it recognises the practical difficulties of teaching together children of widely varying span of age and ability. These difficulties are enhanced by the continually increased demands being made on the school curriculum by the expansion of knowledge and the complexity of everday living.
It is intended during the period of the programme that this policy of amalgamation be maintained and that wherever practicable, following consultation with parents, teachers and school authorities, smaller schools be consolidated into more viable educational units.
An aspect of amalgamation policy hitherto was that it applied mainly to rural areas. The arguments for amalgamating urban schools, where the enrolment has fallen well below the capacity of the provision, are compelling, both on grounds of financial viablility and range of educational services. The possibilities of amalgamating such schools will also be pursued during the period of the programme.
If I might mention the curriculum at primary level, the curriculum of the primary schools was reviewed and a new curriculum introduced in 1971. There are a number of important qualities with respect to this curriculum which it is important to emphasise. One is that it is child-centred, the second is that it is an integrated curriculum and the third that it is highly flexible, affording the professionally trained treacher the opportunity to interpret it in a way which best suits the circumstances of the children she is teaching.
Any broadly based surveys carried out on the primary curriculum have indicated that it has a high level of acceptability among teachers, pupils and parents and that it has added significantly to the scope and range of primary education.
The various aspects of the curriculum have been the subject of a number of evaluative studies by the curriculum unit of the Department of Education and the publication of these studies during the period of the programme will provide a useful pointer to any changes or adaptations that may be required.
The Curriculum and Examinations Board will take on responsibility for recommending such changes and will pay particular attention to the problems arising on the transfer of pupils from the child-centred primary to the subject-centred post-primary system. Pilot projects of a curricular nature which it is planned to undertake during the period of the programme concern the teaching of science and of computing in selected schools. The initial definition of these projects is being undertaken by the inspectors of my Department, following which consultation will take place with the appropriate authorities.
It will be seen that the proposals regarding primary education in the Programme for Action are very practical and address themselves to three main themes. Firstly, the schools must be enabled to operate at the best possible level. There is little point in spending large sums of money on teachers' salaries if they then have to go to work in schools where environmental and resource factors militate against good teaching and good learning. Secondly, increased resources, to the extent that they are available, are directed towards pupils who are socially disadvantaged or otherwise experiencing learning difficulties. It is our firm conviction that such a policy is justifiable at any time but is especially justifiable at a time when resources are scarce. Thirdly, the proposals aim for increased efficiency in the planning, provision and use of schools, in their maintenance and preservation and in the implementation of curricular and teaching strategies which will be supported by in-service training. It is my hope, indeed my conviction, that the end of the four year period will see positive and tangible progress in primary education.
In the chapter dealing with second level education the major issues of our time are examined. The question of the structuring of the post-primary cycles will be addressed at a later date in the promised discussion paper linking the issues of the ages of entry to, transfer within and leaving from the educational system. Many of the topics discussed have curricular implications and will fall to be considered by the Curriculum and Examinations Board. However, at the same time the general debate about them must also be given a wider audience.
The programme sets out to ensure the rational and complementary development of the secondary, vocational and community/comprehensive sectors. Each has its own strengths and our aim will be to draw on the best of all of them. It is not in the interest of the development of our young people that these sectors should be in competition with one another, each out to protect or advance its own position. Rather we must achieve harmony, complementarity and the maximum degree of co-operation between them.
In the sixties a veritable revolution occurred in Irish education in that almost overnight access to full second-level education became available to all Irish children. Widespread access to this level is now taken for granted and it is agreed by most people that the time is now ripe for us to consolidate our achievements. This consolidation is to take the form of examining more closely the system of second-level schooling to ensure its continuing significance and relevance to the individual pupil and to society as a whole. This scrutiny of our second-level system of education is, in my opinion, a task of even greater fundamental significance than the decisions of the sixties, in the sense that it is going to require self-examination of a high philosophical nature which will demand from educators and adults in our society a commitment calling for great discipline, learning and humility.
The general area of education for life is already the subject of several quite unique educational pilot schemes in this country and of many special programmes formulated by individual schools in response to these needs. Convent and Protestant schools in particular have done some remarkable work in this area.
Adolescents are becoming more and more the object of commercial interests and an extensive teenage industry has developed based on their buying power. This industry make use of widespread advertising and aims at creating new needs, desires and preferences. This, unfortunately, strengthens adolescents' identity as a separate group and widens the gulf between them and the parent generation.
Furthermore the role of parents as primary educators and counsellors has been eroded with the advent of modern technology and developments in the mass media. Non-occupational training, which parents once gave to their children, has been taken out of their hands, not by the teacher but by the very social changes which has separated adolescents into a society of their own. Adolescents may now be an independent youth culture. Yet modern research continues to indicate general goodwill of adolescents towards family and school.
Do our schools, or do schools anywhere, respond positively on behalf of pupils' needs? I believe there is a positive growing awareness, born of genuine concern and humility, in our society that we have not been doing enough to support adolescents and that it is time that we responded on several fronts to help our teenagers to gain fulfilment on as many planes as possible.
The whole question of sex education needs to be addressed urgently. This is of course an area of particular delicacy and sensitivity. It is important to involve all the relevant parties, parents, teachers, school management, social workers, Health Education Bureau, together to formulate a programme of sex education which would be open to all schools to use. The Action Programme stresses the importance of collaboration between agencies to achieve the formal introduction of health education in all schools. Sex education is an important aspect of this.
I am conscious of course that many schools have already devised very successful programmes of sex education. In this they have had regard to the views of parents. In many cases sex education is dealt with in the context of pastoral care programmes, or religious education classes, alongside the straightforward informational aspects which arise in classes such as in science and home economics. I am anxious to encourage all schools to face up to these issues. I am told that boys schools in particular have still a long way to go in this respect.
For my part I want to ensure that assistance will be forthcoming from my Department in helping schools to plan sex education programmes. Within the present range of subjects at secondary level there is the means to create eventually a positive approach to dispelling ignorance of elementary areas of sexuality and of offering students constructive guidelines for fulfilling their social and personal potential. But the usual problem exists: a subject-based approach where there is no effective cross-reference between the subjects which can incorporate this knowledge. This is one of the major tasks confronting the Curriculum and Examinations Board: making the subject-based curriculum more flexible in a school staff's mind so that it can cope with urgent or ongoing problems which do not lend themselves to treatment in single subject areas.
Today as never before our young people are exposed to the widespread availability of drugs. Drugs are an additional hazard to be encountered by boys and girls in the process of growing up. Drugs education must be seen in the context of preparation for life and not separated out for special attention.
A series of information days for teachers from schools in "at risk" areas have been planned and will commence shortly. These seminars will provide information for teachers and will provide a means of consultation on further action. The information days will be followed up by longer courses of about one week's duration for selected teachers so that progress will be made towards the goal of having at least one teacher per school in "at risk" areas in a position to advise on issues relating to drugs. These courses will commence in the summer.
My Department are co-operating with the health education bureau in updating the training of a group of 25 teachers who took a course some years ago so that they might be available to parent groups and to other teachers to give talks on drugs.
Collaboration has begun with the Health Education Bureau in the production of material which may be used for drugs education. A set of video film has been developed and these are being used on a pilot basis in about 40 schools. These will be available for wider dissemination, with accompanying teaching notes, before the end of this school year. In addition there is co-operation in the production of a general drugs education package for schools. It is planned to continue to develop a range of materials.
A diploma course in addiction studies has been established in Trinity College. This course is being funded by the Department of Health for an initial three-year trial period. I hope that some interested teachers will be enabled to attend this course.
I realise that it will take time for educational action to affect what is happening on our streets and elsewhere. I realise, as well, that education alone is not the only answer. I feel that a good beginning has been made. What is important is that what we are doing is developed and sustained and that we do not allow ourselves to become complacent. I hope that the actions I have mentioned will attract broad support and that these will make an important and continuing contribution to the prevention of drug abuse.
Another important thrust of the action programme is the emphasis on the development of science and technology in educational programmes.
In recent years scientific and technological developments in microelectronics, telecommunications and data processing techniques have had profound effects not only on industrial and commercial activities but also on society in general.
As a consequence, there have been many changes both of a qualitative and quantitative nature which affect virtually all members of society. Indications are that the rate of advance in scientific knowledge and technological know-how will continue at an equally rapid pace. It is predicted that by the year 2000, not so far away, the amount of knowledge available will be three to four times more than the amount available today.
As we have a small open economy with a high percentage of our population in school, it is important that the educational system is capable of producing persons with appropriate expertise and skills.
In order to optimise the social impact of technological change, educational programmes must be designed so as to ensure that pupils acquire the requisite knowledge and flexibility of approach to be able to adapt to technological changes and to assimilate new knowledge throughout their adult lives.
We must promote and foster in young people creative talents and encourage the acquisition of entrepreneurial skills. In this respect the advances made in the information technologies and in particular in microcomputing systems are of great significance.
It is now generally accepted that in so far as it is possible, all pupils in post-primary schools should have some knowledge about the applications, limitations and implications for society of the new information technologies and in particular of computing systems.
In order to enable all schools to provide computer awareness programmes, micro-computers, as stated in the Programme for Action, will be supplied to all post-primary schools which have not already benefited by the scheme and which have suitably trained teachers to use them.
Appropriate in-service courses in computer studies will be provided in 1984 and subsequent years to ensure that teachers will be given opportunities to acquire competencies in the educational uses and applications of microcomputers. Microcomputers will also be provided in the principal teacher centres.
In order to make the most effective use of microcomputers in schools my Department has sought the views of management and teaching interests on various strategies relating to the development of computer education. It is hoped that arising from this it will be possible to introduce some new computer based innovations in the near future.
It is encouraging for me as Minister for Education to witness the increase in co-operation between schools and industrial interests. Particularly at a time of economic constraints and financial restrictions, I am glad to know that strong links between industry and schools are being forged and that a number of industries have initiated schemes whereby schools in their locality can avail of their services and in certain instances acquire equipment and materials for school use at little or no cost.
In the area of modern languages the need has long been felt for a form of assessment that takes full account of aural/oral skills. This need has been articulated over a period of years by the language associations, the universities, the teacher unions and by commercial and industrial interests. It is a lack in our assessment procedures of which I have been personally conscious. It is now a source of satisfaction to me that preleaving-cert classes in French, German, Spanish and Italian are at this moment preparing for a new format of examination which includes a listening component. This means that in June 1985 candidates will, for the first time in this country, be examined on their ability to understand the authentic spoken language. I am pleased to state too that the written papers for that year and the years following will test candidates' reading fluency and their ability to respond in a personal rather than an academic way to written questions.
It is clear that reform of this order cannot be carried out without Government investment. Teachers must be given opportunities of attending information sessions, in-service courses in teaching methods, language-proficiency courses at home and in the foreign country whose language they teach.
As well as raising the allocation for in-service courses, my Department has already embarked on a scheme for the provision of cassette-recorders to schools. This scheme is to continue over the next few years. The reforms in modern language teaching that are already under way have by and large been welcomed by practising teachers. The importance of oral competence in languages goes far beyond the world of education alone. It is very important for our economy generally that there is a high level of language competence among those who will market our products abroad. There is also the question of an increasingly mobile work force throughout Europe generally and this gives an added impetus to the need to develop language skills. On both these accounts I am most anxious to see schools encourage the learning of what are sometimes called `minority' languages, particularly German, Spanish and Italian. A question can be raised as to why so many schools concentrate exclusively or principally on French.
The need to co-ordinate educational and training activities has been mentioned in the programme and the Government have appointed Deputy George Birmingham as Minister of State at the Department of Education as well as at the Department of Labour.
He is in the process of consulting all the interests involved and will be reporting to the Minister for Labour and myself and through the Ministers to the Government on the measures which he sees as necessary to bring about greater co-ordination of education and training activities, to eliminate any waste or overlapping and to concentrate available resources in a way which will deliver the best possible service to our young people.
The EEC pilot projects on transition from school to work, the first series of which have been completed and the second series of which have recently been launched, have highlighted the needs in this area and the kind of programmes required to meet those needs.
The revamped guidelines for projects eligible for assistance under the European Social Fund have put great emphasis on basic vocational training and preparation for work.
The opportunity for providing new and expanded courses afforded by the new emphasis in the Social Fund regulations is being actively pursued by my Department and the lines on which developments could proceed have been indicated in the programme.
Such developments would accord closely with the priority tasks which have been assigned to the Curriculum and Examinations Board and would herald a greater emphasis within the education system on provision for those for whose needs the present academically weighted programmes do not provide the answer.
The chapter on third-level education in the Programme for Action is written in the context of the growing number of young people who will be seeking entry into third-level institutions. Unlike most other European countries, we have a growing population. While the rate of increase in our school-going population is slowing down at primary and secondary level we are only now experiencing the brunt of the population growth at third level. In terms of actual numbers, the third-level student population in 1982-83 was of the order of 47,000. It is anticipated that by the end of the decade this number will have increased by about 20,000.
The Government are committed to providing third-level education for as many young people as possible and it is, therefore, very important that every effort should be made to make the system more cost effective and to improve productivity. The Programme for Action lays great stress on considerations of this kind and indicates a number of areas which would repay attention. All of the proposals in the programme will be taken up in discussions with the authorities of the various institutions involved and particularly with the Higher Education Authority, the IVEA and the National Council for Educational Awards.
The emphasis on cost effectiveness and improved productivity is one side of the coin, the other side of which is the provision of additional places and the updating of equipment and facilities generally, all of which must be financed out of the Public Capital Programme. The position in this regard in the years immediately ahead will be considered by the Government as part of the medium-term capital programme which is at present being drawn up.
It is recognised that no matter what may be achieved in terms of cost-efficiency and greater utilisation of resources, increased numbers of students will give rise to substantial increases in the provision of current funding also. This leads inevitably to consideration of the level of fees to be charged to students. In the university sector, students fees have been increased regularly over the last few years. For the current academic year, fees were increased substantially in the technological sector but from a very low base in comparison to the fees charged to university students. Notwithstanding these increases, the total current cost of university education met from fees is still only about 17 per cent whereas in the early seventies fees accounted for 20 per cent of the total costs.
In the non-university sector, fees represent a lower percentage of the total costs. It has been the policy of Coalition Governments to provide aid for students who could not otherwise afford to avail of third-level education. As evidence of this policy it must be pointed out that the Coalition Government announced major improvements in the higher education grants scheme for the year 1981-82. The improvements brought about in student aid schemes at that time may be gauged from the fact that in 1980-81 the total expenditure on the higher education grants scheme was £4 million and there were 5,021 grant holders. By 1982-83 expenditure had more than doubled and the number of grant holders had increased by almost 50 per cent to 7,410. In the case of the VEC scholarship scheme there were 1,762 scholarship holders in 1980-81 and the cost was £953,000. By 1982-83 the number of scholarship holders had increased by more than 150 per cent to 4,440 and the cost more than quadrupled to £4.04 million.
The Government are naturally concerned to ensure that the level of fees is not pitched at a level which would adversely affect the numbers of students availing of third-level education. There is a need, therefore, to examine this question carefully to see if alternative funding arrangements are possible. It is with this in view that the Programme for Action refers to the possibility of a mixed grant-loan system of student aid. The programme points out that such a scheme is under consideration at present by the Government and that an announcement on it will be made in due course.
In the foreword to the programme I refer to the scope of the consultations held with the various interest groups and this applied to those involved in third-level education as much as any other sector. I look forward to continuing that consultation with the relevant interests.
The Government's role with regard to third level education is not solely one of making provision for an increased number of places. Since the sixties there has been an unprecedented surge of activity in the development of new institutions — the regional technical colleges, the national institutes for higher education for example — and in developing new roles for existing institutions — the development of new courses in the colleges of education is an obvious example.
As a necessary corollary to this activity, we have had the growth of new regulatory agencies to cater for the orderly expansion of new and old institutions. The Higher Education Authority and the National Council for Educational Awards are the most important of these agencies. The work of providing a legislative framework for the changed situation at third level is not yet complete. In particular, there is a need to consider whether legislation is required to break up the National University of Ireland and to provide a modern responsive, democratic structure of government for the university institutions formed as a result of this break-up.
The contribution by our universities to economic growth, to political stability and to social development has been inestimable. Distinguished scholars from our universities have rubbed shoulders with the world's outstanding intellectual giants. The inter-action between State, industry, trade unions and universities is a full and mutually rewarding one and I consider that political life is all the richer because it has attracted eminent academics to its ranks.
The challenge facing universities today to work with me and the Government in finding ways to throw open our resources to a bigger number of young people is as great as anything that has faced them in the past. I know they will face that challenge with generosity and true patriotism.
During the period of the Programme for Action extensive consultations are envisaged with the providers of teacher education at both first and second levels. These consultations will be concerned both with the quantitative and the qualitative side of teacher education. On the quantitative side there has for many years been a need to refine methods of fore-casting teacher requirement. It would be difficult to defend to taxpayers the maintenance of a capacity to train teachers in excess of our needs, or to young people the maintenance of a system which would offer them training for a profession which many of them would never be able to exercise. On the qualitative side it is some years now since the Bachelor of Education degree courses for primary teachers have been established and it stands to reason that the review envisaged at the time of their establishment should take place at an early date.
In-service training as a concept is widely accepted throughout industry, business and the professions. In the field of education teachers have to cope with the advances in knowledge in their subjects, with the changes in pedagogic methods signalled by research and evaluation, with the inclusion of new disciplines in schools and the redundancy of old ones, with the varying curricular demands set down by curriculum planners and developers. Much of this adaptation to change is carried out by teachers on a personal basis because teachers are, in the last analysis, students in their own right. Support structures for in-service training are however necessary and in the main these consist of courses organised by the Department, by various professional organisations or by the teachers themselves in association with the teacher centres.
Adult education is an area where it is important for us to clarify priorities. To do this we must await publication of the Adult Education Commission's Report. However, the Action Programme promises that literacy provision will receive special attention. As an earnest of our intentions here, I am pleased to tell the House, that for the first time ever a grant of £10,000 will be made this year to the National Adult Literacy Agency to support them in their extremely important work, as I am much impressed by all that they are doing.
It is appropriate that our debate on the Programme for Action in Education should conclude with a discussion of the proposals regarding the Irish language and culture. The position in the debate defines it as the last but by no means the least of our concerns.
I would say that had every institution in our society supported the Irish language as well as our schools have done in the past, then there is little doubt but that Irish would be a vernacular language in daily use in this country to a much greater extent than it is at present.
It is appropriate too that I should pay tribute to teachers generally, but particularly to the teachers in national schools who in the early years of the State gave sterling service to a language revival policy which was then seen as essential to the development and maintenance of our self-image as a distinctive people and nation. Their efforts continued throughout the years with diminishing support from the environment outside of the school and under increasing assault from the ready access to media messages and entertainment in the world language, English. Many would have given up in despair, but our teachers persisted and they have weathered criticisms about the standard and position of Irish in the schools when many of these criticisms might have been more appropriately directed at the lack of a supportive and applicative environment outside the school, which is essential for the progress of a living language.
The Irish language remains as essential to our recognition as a distinctive people, as a source of a culture from which we can contribute much of unique and inestimable value to the civilisation of Europe and the world. What Plean Ghníomhaíochta na Gaeilge in conjunction with the Action Programme for Education offers is the opportunity for a new beginning. For the first time Irish is seen, not as a replacement of the world language, English, but as a vernacular national language that can and should co-exist with English in a bilingual society.
Specific actions and targets are set down for the Gaeltacht, for the State and for the community generally as well as for education. These actions and targets are and should be supportive of one another, so that the education sector in undertaking its component of the task will not be acting alone. From this broad approach should emerge a new environment in relation to Irish, an environment which will be supportive of our young people in the learning of the language, an environment which will afford them the opportunity to use what they learn outside the confines of the school and stimulate them to do so, but above all an environment which has defined and accepted our national language and culture as something which we must retain and develop in all aspects of our life as Irish people.
In my foreword to the Programme for Action, I stated that it was the Government's hope that the programme would initiate a constructive debate on the educational system. I look forward to today's debate. I look forward, too, to continuing discussions with the various educational interests. I am not naive enough to think for one moment that the production of this document will be the panacea for all the ills in the educational system. I need hardly tell this House that I am aware now, as never before, of the complexities in education and the challenges which face us.
Of course, there are difficulties. Resources are going to be scarce, but that is the spur to greater effort. There is much that we can do to improve the quality of our education system without resources or with small additional resources. I submit that the Programme for Action sets out clear courses of action which will guide us on the right lines for the next four years.
I commend the programme to the House.
