Before we adjourned the debate I was dealing with Deputy Durkan's excuses for the number of unemployed teachers. I pointed out that the Department of Education have a moral obligation to employ primary teachers because of the Department exercising very rigid control in regard to entry standards of students to the colleges of education.
Both the Minister and Deputy Doyle said no one should suggest that more teachers and facilities should be made available in our schools without indicating where the additional money was to come from. I assure both the Minister and the Deputy that the excuses offered by them and the Government for the cutbacks in education and for the failure to provide the necessary numbers of teachers and the necessary facilities in our schools will be a very poor consolation to those unfortunate young people whose education will be blighted because of the education policy of the Government.
Deputy Doyle made the extraordinary statement that Fianna Fáil were not interested in parental involvement in education but said that Fine Gael are interested in this aspect. The Deputy is relatively new here and I suppose on that basis we must forgive her for her lack of knowledge on this matter. When I was Minister for Education I appointed parents to the boards of community schools. That was the first time parents had been appointed to the boards of any schools. It was the first time they were given specific involvement in our educational system. Indeed, the development since then in respect of parental involvement has followed on that original appointment of parents to the boards of community schools.
I have a particular interest in parental involvement in education. Some time ago I was especially pleased to learn that the INTO had agreed to resume parent-teacher meetings. It is recognised generally that close co-operation between parents and teachers is vital for the development of the child. I do not propose to give a definition of education other than to say it is concerned with the development of all the attributes of the individual to the end that he may achieve personal fulfilment and at the same time meet to the greatest extent possible his obligations to his Creator and to his fellow citizens.
Therefore, education is not solely a matter for schools, lecture halls and programmes of study, though these are important elements in the whole process. The education process is a continuing one. It begins before the age of formal schooling is attained and continues well beyond the time when the classroom and the lecture hall have been left behind. When we discuss curricula, school organisation and career opportunities we should recognise these other aspects of education. One might regard them as elements devised to serve education. Even in dim and distant times it was accepted that the parent was the prime and natural educator of the child. This principle has been embodied in the Christian philosophy of education which defines the function of the parent in this sense as being both a right and a duty.
As civilisation advanced the concept of the school developed as an instrument to help the parent in the fulfilment of his role as an educator. The school was not instituted either to relieve parents of their duties or to take from them the right to educate their children. The school was devised to help parents in that role. The closer the association between teachers and parents in matters concerned directly with the education of their children, the more valuable the help of the school is likely to be. It has been said often that the school should be an extension of the home. This is true in the sense that in the school there are people with special training and skills who undertake aspects of the child's development which for a variety of reasons parents cannot take on themselves.
While on the concept of the school being an extension of the home I should mention something that has occurred to me often in relation to home life and social life in areas of concentrated housing in Dublin and in the larger cities and towns. These areas have large primary schools and up to recently teachers were generally from rural backgrounds. For the most part they had little understanding of the world from where their pupils were drawn. For such children the school cannot be an extension of the home, unless the teacher familiarises himself with the social background of the pupils. I often thought that songs such as "Beidh Aonach Amárach i gContae an Chláir" mean little to pupils whose experience of commerce is limited to an occasional transaction at the chipper.
One of my recollections of practice teaching in a Dublin school many years ago was when an inspector came into the classroom and the children were reading a story called the Crow and the Pitcher. He suggested that I explain the word "pitcher" because these children would go to the pictures. Mathematical problems based on things outside the vision of a child or language lessons in Irish or English based on rural life will not appeal to those who have never been beyond the large housing estates in which they live, breathe and go to school.
School education must be aimed towards a broadening of knowledge as well as developing a child's moral, intellectual and reasoning faculties. One should not forget physical education. The teaching skill called for is to lead a child from the experience he acquires in his home and local community to a knowledge of broader horizons without creating the impression that what he learns at school has no bearing on real life.
There is vital need for close co-operation between parents and teachers so that the teacher can attain some knowledge of the family and their social background. It is understandable that I should be interested in the new curriculum because I took great interest in its development and introduced it into schools in July 1971 when I was Minister for Education. It was the first major change in either the structure or the content of the school programme since 1926. The old curriculum was rigidly subject centred. The child was a passive recipient of information fed to him by the teacher. School was another world divorced from the child's surroundings. Success or failure in life depended on the way a child mastered the basic skills of reading writing and arithmetic. This attitude was understandable when primary education was all that the majority could aspire to. Change was taking place in that period, particularly in infant classes. It was accepted that individual differences should be recognised and catered for and that every child should be encouraged to do his best but not forced beyond his capabilities. These principles were applied in some schools to other classes. Children played a more active role in their education with the consequent development of self-reliance, confidence and flexibility of mind.
The object of the new curriculum was to create a learning environment rather than a teaching one. The work in the school was child centred rather than subject centred. It was to develop the child's faculties of reasoning and healthy curiosity so that he would reach out and discover knowledge for himself rather than receive it passively from the teacher. The new curriculum held out great promise for the better educational development of the child. It did not make the task of education easier but the atmosphere was more pleasant. Greater self-discipline was necessary. A new orientation was required by the teacher.
It was in the closer involvement of parents that the new curriculum had the greatest significance. Pupils were encouraged to integrate their home and community experience with learning at school. Through the child's questioning and observing in the home and elsewhere, parents are associated with their children's development. This has helped teachers to become more what proper school educational philosophy demands, that is, that they be collaborators and partners with the parents in the preparation of young people for life. In this way the curriculum is making a contribution towards the improvement of what is known as the quality of life. As a result of the way the new curriculum was introduced, parents see they have a function in the educational process. It encouraged them to consider how they could have a greater input into the process.
There are no structures whereby parents and teachers can meet at present. No official time is made available for such meetings. While efforts are made to overcome the obstacles in some schools, this is not widespread. The Minister stated she proposes to assist the setting up of parent primary councils. This is a step in the right direction but it is far from what is necessary. The setting up of primary councils would help to give parents a greater involvement in the formulation of policy, but the reality is that what is needed is for parents to meet teachers. Teachers should have a clearer perception of the problems of parents and together they could considerably improve the education of children. There is very little use in teachers meeting all the parents at the same time. To be effective it must be on a person to person basis. This may be time consuming but it is in the best interest of the child. Official recognition should be given to this by allocating time and setting up special structures for this purpose. As I have said, I am interested in the setting up of parent councils but that is not even half the battle. We should not wait until parental councils are set up before we try to develop the structures which are necessary if we are to get full value from our educational system.
There is one area of educational handicap to which I would like to refer, that is, the education of the travelling people. I believe education can make a worthwhile contribution to the solution of the problems. In this area we should not confine ourselves to the education of the children alone, we should interest ourselves in providing more educational facilities for adults also. If such facilities were availed of, newly settled travelling people would be helped to integrate with their neighbours. Suitable courses in home management would benefit newly settled travelling people. I am aware that such courses are available but I would be interested to know what efforts are being made by the Department and by the vocational education committees to encourage these people to attend these courses.
The attitudes the settled community and the travelling people have had towards each other over many generations are not easily changed, but as a result of the efforts of many dedicated people these attitudes are gradually changing. I think it is true to say that the majority of travelling people want to abandon their traditional wandering and to be accepted as ordinary members of the community. The national aim is ultimately to absorb travelling families into the community and education is a basic need in helping them to achieve this objective.
The educational problems of the children of travelling people are similar in many respects to those of other educationally retarded children but they are aggravated by social disabilities and other consequences of their unsettled way of life. There are some special schools for children of travelling people where there are large concentrations of travelling people in highly populated areas, but if we are to achieve the ultimate aim of total integration, it is essential that the children attend ordinary schools. It may be that all but the youngest children will need a period of preparation in a special class or school as a prelude to their integration in ordinary classes. One of the lessons learned in some schools where special help has been provided for the children of travelling people has been that a high proportion of these children can take their place successfully in ordinary classes after a relatively short period of special preparation.
I would be glad if the Minister would take a further look not only at the facilities provided for these children but also if she would ascertain the use being made of them and if anything further can be done to help. Children of most, if not all, travelling people or recently settled families are likely to suffer social and cultural deprivation and perhaps the voluntary organisations would be of assistance in this area.
I would like to comment on the Programme for Action in Education. When a person's actions are contrary to his expressed views and when he is not too happy about the acceptability of his actions, he tends to take refuge in the old cliché — do not do as I do but rather do as I say. The Minister is obviously in that situation. Since she became Minister for Education she has gone a considerable distance along the road to dismantling an education system which has been built up over the years with painstaking and loving care. In the process she has set a pattern which will result in many young people being deprived of the opportunity of realising their educational potential. As a result of the Coalition Government's policy, the outlook for the educationally disadvantaged is bleak in spite of the views expressed in the Minister's document. I have no doubt that she would be pleased if we did not concern ourselves with what she has done since assuming office, but rather that we should read her booklet and hopefully we would see that the real Minister for Education was different from what her actions would lead us to believe. I am afraid actions speak louder than words. As the Minister's actions are in direct contradiction to the stated objectives in that booklet, we have no alternative but to assess her period in office on her actions rather than the proposals adumbrated in that document, and more especially as the likelihood of these proposals coming to fruition are very poor.
We cannot quarrel with the principles laid down in the document. Nothing in the principles is new. Many Ministers for Education laid down similar principles in the past, the difference being that Fianna Fáil Ministers acted positively while the same cannot be said about the present Government. The principles as laid down in the preamble to the Programme for Action in Education are not new. They are in the main principles on which Fianna Fáil Governments have built our educational system. While recognising the need for further development, this is a system of which I feel we can be justifiably proud. The objective of Fianna Fáil policy has been to provide equality of educational opportunities for all, to ensure that every person would have an opportunity to develop his or her God-given potential to the full. Year after year, Fianna Fáil Ministers for Education continued to develop our educational system to achieve equality of educational opportunities for all. While it was recognised that much more remained to be done, rapid progress was made under Fianna Fáil Governments in this area. We were clearly on the right road towards achieving our goal.
It was a Fianna Fáil Government and Ministers for Education who decided that education should not be the prerogative of the few, and that it was no longer tolerable that the vast majority of our people should have to make do with a few years in a primary school and then move into the great big world to eke out an existence. Under a Fianna Fáil Government in the late fifties and early sixties a deep study of the educational scene in Ireland was undertaken under the instruction of the then Minister for Education. This study resulted in the publication of Investment in Education. Fianna Fáil Governments set about with a will implementing the recommendations in that publication, and the educational scene here has never been the same since. The rapid implementation of the proposals in Investment in Education transformed the whole education scene. Free post-primary education was introduced, third level educational facilities developed and students assisted at that level. A new primary school curriculum was introduced, programmes initiated to help the educationally disadvantaged, remedial teachers appointed, career guidance introduced and so on.
The basic importance of the introduction of the free educational system was not simply that from then on post-primary education was available free of charge, because for those living near post-primary schools operated by brothers and nuns the cost of education, particularly in respect of school fees, was not high, and of course it was free in schools under the control of the VECs. The real importance of the scheme was that for the first time the attention of all our people was directed to the fact that education was for everybody. This resulted in a realisation among the great majority, most of whom had not themselves experienced third level education, that education was their right and that they had the same entitlement to it as those who because of their means had been in a position to avail of it in the past. Once given the opportunity people quickly availed of the facility and the numbers attending post-primary schools increased rapidly. School transport was provided free of charge for those living a distance from the post-primary school for the simple — and what should have been to everybody obvious — reason that the provision of free post-primary educational facilities was of little use to those who because of their distance from the post-primary school could not avail of them.
More and more schools were built or extended and more and more teachers employed. Children who were unable to cope were helped by remedial teachers especially qualified to deal with their problems. Career guidance was introduced, third level education developed rapidly, regional colleges were set up. The NIHEs were established in Limerick and Dublin. Scholarships were awarded at a whole variety of levels for young people and the basic principle involved was that every child was entitled to have his or her God-given potential developed to the degree possible in each individual case.
Much was done by Fianna Fáil to develop our educational system and achieve our objective. Much remained to be done in a world of rapid technological change. The need for continuous development is always there. The tragedy is, however, that with the advent of the present Coalition Government in 1982 the whole process of the development of our educational system not only stopped but went into reverse. We are now well on our way to returning to the situation of many years ago when only those who can afford it can hope to participate in post-primary education. This applies particularly to those living in rural areas. Bit by bit, the whole fabric of our educational system which had been painstakingly built up over the years has been disbanded. There is scarcely a single facet of it which is not adversely affected by present Government policy.
There is little point in producing a document such as the Programme for Action on Education, or in putting forward high sounding principles when at the same time every action of the Minister and the Government in respect of education is in direct contradiction to these very principles. One has only to note the many cutbacks made by the Government and the present Minister in money in real terms for education to appreciate that the fears which I express are well founded.
Fares must now be paid on school buses, which of course is an extra taxation on parents. Young people and their families are being penalised because of where they happen to live. The Minister might say that those with medical cards have free passes on school buses. We are all only too well aware that with any means test large numbers of people just above the means test limit are those most adversely affected. The question arises as to how long such people will be able to continue to struggle to educate their children. The fact is that in many instances the children were already at post-primary schools before the introduction of these changes and efforts continued to be made by parents, but as time goes on it becomes more and more difficult. I can see the point being reached when many families with incomes just above the medical card limit will not find it possible to continue their children's post-primary education.
One of the principles enunciated in the preamble to the Minister's document is as follows:
Educational provision should discriminate positively in favour of the educationally disadvantaged.
The fact is that the Minister has done exactly the opposite. She has discriminated positively against the educationally disadvantaged. What is the point of the Minister's enunciating high sounding principles when one primary school in my constituency, Saint Oliver's in Drogheda with over 1,300 pupils, has, as a result of the changes made in the pupil-teacher ratio by the present Minister, only one remedial teacher to cater for all its disadvantaged pupils? Not only that, but this one teacher is not full-time on remedial work; he has other subjects to teach as well. If this were not such a serious matter, one might regard that facet of the Minister's action plan as a joke. I can assure the Minister that it is not a joke; it is an extremely serious matter. It underlines the seriously damaging effect of the Minister's decision in respect of the pupil-teacher ratio.
What of the disadvantaged children in that school? What price their future? What help will be the small amount of money which the Minister is now allocating for disadvantaged areas to them? I have no doubt that they would be quite happy to trade that money for the appointment of more remedial teachers. One could not blame the teachers and parents in that school for a cynical reaction to the Minister's plan of action in respect of this matter. I put down a question to the Minister explaining the situation in the school and asking that she give permission to appoint extra teachers. They needed at least nine extra teachers and were entitled to them under the normal provisions. However, because they were a rapidly growing school they were particularly badly affected by this new pupil-teacher ratio. The Minister gave one teacher extra last year but, as they had already one teacher over the quota, it means no increase and this year the Minister is offering them .2 of a teacher.
The changes made by the Minister for Education in relation to the pupil-teacher ratio are having, and will continue to have at an accelerated rate as time passes, a most seriously detrimental effect on our whole educational system. The really unfortunate aspect is that many parents do not yet appreciate the damage which this decision of the Minister could have on their children's education and because of the very nature of the matter they may never know what damage was caused. When a child reaches the end of his or her post-primary course it will be difficult for that child or for the child's parents to ascertain with any certainty the effect of fewer teachers, larger classes and fewer subject options on the child's educational development. I am afraid that the present Government are taking refuge in that fact.
When the Minister decided to compel parents to pay school bus fares the effect of that was easily understood by parents. They knew that this was simply a new form of taxation levied exclusively on parents of school-going children in rural areas. Understandably, they protested vigorously. But the changing of the pupil-teacher ratio in vocational and secondary schools appears to the layman to simply mean that a teacher would have one or two extra pupils to teach. They could not see any great problem there. The reality, of course, is that there will be fewer teachers in schools because of the change and this will become a more acute problem as vacancies remain unfilled. This change means, and will continue to mean, much larger classes in each school and the restricting of subject choices in both junior and senior cycles in post-primary schools. It means, in many instances, that pupils taking honours courses in particular subjects will be placed in the same classes with pupils taking pass courses in the same subjects to the detriment of honours and pass students. How can all this lead to equality of educational opportunities? How can such a policy help each child to develop its God-given potential? How can a child with a bent for practical or science subjects hope to reach its full potential when, as a result of the changes in the pupil-teacher ratio, these subjects are no longer available to him? Is the Minister aware that post-primary school authorities in many instances have now informed parents who have applied to have their children taken into these schools that they will be taken but that there are conditions. The conditions are that they will not, for example in certain instances, be permitted to do science subjects or they will not be permitted in certain instances to do language subjects or some other subjects. Parents are blaming the school authorities but the fact of the matter is that the parents should blame the Government and the Minister for Education who are responsible for the problem.
In the chapter dealing with secondary education the following appears:
A major need will be the development of more flexible organisations with particular regard to the needs of the lower achievers.
I do not know exactly what the Minister means here because, as I said earlier, while the Minister is suggesting what would be a good thing we find that the exact opposite is being done. Classes, as a result of the Minister's decree will be larger. The question I ask is will this allow for greater flexibility? Honours and pass courses, as I said a moment ago, are now being lumped together in one class. Will this allow for flexibility? What about the disadvantaged child in these circumstances? In many schools there will not be a remedial teacher at all and in others, such as the one I mentioned in my constituency with over 1,300 pupils, there will be one remedial teacher devoting part of his teaching hours each week to remedial teaching. The remedial teacher in such circumstances must feel totally helpless when faced with the enormous problem of trying to deal with the disadvantaged pupils in a school with over 1,300 pupils. I am afraid, having read the Minister's document, he will feel hopeless as well. In that particular school there is one guidance teacher for over 1,300 pupils. Is the Minister serious?
I have discussed this particular programme with many people involved in education since I got a copy of it and they have the same feeling I have about it, that it looks and reads very well but from a practical point of view and because, quite obviously, the Minister has no intention of developing it to any great extent, it will not achieve anything like what would appear on the surface it would be likely to achieve. I do not know how anybody could accept the credibility of the Government when the Minister's actions, as I said a while ago, in relating to disadvantaged children are in direct contradiction to what she is, in effect, doing.
There are quite a number of schools now where there was a remedial teacher and where those teachers are no longer available. What of the disadvantaged children in those schools? What is the point in saying in the document that our whole purpose must be to direct our attention to the disadvantaged? I fully agree with that aspect of it. What is the purpose in saying it if in fact the remedial teachers have been removed from quite a considerable number of schools? The only hope some children had in these schools has vanished.
We must have smaller not larger classes if we are really concerned about overcoming educational disadvantages. We must have more remedial teachers not fewer and we must have more guidance teachers not fewer. As I said earlier on, in reference to a remark made by Deputy Doyle when the Minister for Education says she is restricted by lack of finance this is very little consolation to those who lose out and will have no opportunity to retrieve their position. It is very important that we should remember that if we have a generation of young people who, because of the cutbacks and restrictions in relation to educational policy at the present time, suffer, there is no way they can come back. That is the major problem. In future when money becomes available we will be dealing with a new generation of young people and, hopefully, if money becomes available we will be able to develop their talents but, in the meantime, those who are left at the moment suffering because of the Ministerial cutbacks will have missed their chance.
The Minister's document refers to the recent report of the Educational Broadcasting Committee and to their recommendations regarding an investment programme for the development of educational broadcasting. With regard to this vital element in our rapidly developing technological world we are told that this particular aspect is to be put on the long finger. Funds will not be made available to implement what is a very necessary educational aid. One does not have to dwell on the influence of radio and television on our young people to recognise the urgent need for development in this area. It is an indictment of the plan of action for education covering the next few years if all it has to say on what is a vital element in our educational system or which is a vital element in the educational system in the whole developed world, is that the Minister and the Department will support the recommendation of the Broadcasting Development Committee that responsibility for educational broadcasting will be placed on any new agencies which may be granted a broadcasting licence in the forthcoming legislation. This is hardly the dynamic approach expected from a programme of action in education designed to upgrade our educational system over the next four years. In the thirties we had radio educational broadcasting for schools and in the sixties we had television school broadcasts. In 1984 we have neither one nor the other.
This is surely a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. In a world in which there is such rapid technological change, primary teachers — indeed, all teachers — need support in subjects in which they have little experience. Changes in curriculum present difficulties even for experienced teachers. Radio and television programmes may be used with support material in such subjects as mathematics, Irish, nature study, environmental studies and so on. Schools broadcasting can bring the outside world into the classroom. It can illustrate working life and its problems and is eminently suited to deal with such matters as hygiene, dental care, sport and combating the drug problem. We live in the space age and if the Minister's attitude is that we cannot afford to pay for educational broadcasting she can hardly hope to be taken seriously in saying that she intends to keep our curriculum up to date.
In Denmark, a country which can be compared with Ireland, the average production of new programmes per year is as follows: primary schools, 25 radio hours and ten television hours; secondary schools, 25 radio hours and ten television hours; adult education, 50 radio hours and 20 television hours; a total of 100 radio hours and 40 television hours. The Minister's plan of action informs us that nothing can be done here.
It should be a matter of concern that because we have not television programmes for schools BBC programmes are being used in progressive schools in multi-channel areas. These are excellent programmes in themselves but they portray a culture which is not ours and our way of life is endangered, particularly from programmes projected at our children in their most formative years. The need for Irish-oriented programmes should be obvious. It reminds me of the time, not too long ago, when the only qualifications we had for third level students in institutions other than universities were the London City and Guilds diplomas and degrees. These were excellent qualifications in themselves but they were not suited to Irish conditions and needs. The NCEA were established to cater for those needs. Equally we need radio and television programmes to cater for our needs but we do not appear likely to get them.
In the primary school sector it is proposed during the period of the plan to provide micro-computers and appropriate software in the principal teacher centres. In Britain most primary schools have micro-computers and in Japan micro-computers have been introduced at pre-school level. According to recent reports Ireland is one of Europe's leading manufacturers of data processing equipment, exporting over £900 million worth of equipment. How can we hold this position if the best our educational system can do is supply only principal teacher centres with micro-computers within the next four years? Our children must become familiar with new technology at an early age. Money spent on such development would be an investment in the future. I would urge the Minister to reverse her excessively timid approach to this matter and provide grants for the supply of computers to primary schools. In this age of rapid technological development and change, computers are a must if we are to keep up our educational development. The Minister should immediately provide at least in-service courses to deal with this subject. It is an ideal area in which to make full use of the curriculum development unit in the Department.
If we ignore the need to supply our primary schools with computers the gap between children from educationally advantaged homes and those from educationally disadvantaged homes will become even greater. Interested parents in a position to do so will buy a home computer and use the many educational programmes now coming on the market to educate their children, in some cases even before the children have reached school age. This gap will cause major difficulties for teachers. If the Minister does not at least provide grant assistance, only the primary schools with the necessary numbers and parental support will be able to afford computers.
