I move:
"That Dáil Éireann deplores the major cutbacks in educational finances which have led to excessive increases in the size of classes, the unemployment of large numbers of teachers and many other serious problems in our schools and calls on the Government to make full and adequate provision for education."
Those are the terms of the motion put down by me and my party for this important debate. This is a critical time for thinking about education because in the last months of the old year, the last term, parents are making decisions and thinking what the year beginning in September will mean for their children, what provisions will be made for their education and what questions they will have to answer. This debate is particularly opportune, following on the teacher's meetings held in Easter week. It was interesting to follow those debates and to read them. Reading between the lines is of even more significance. One can clearly discern the trend of thought emerging.
There are really two versions of what is happening in relation to provisions for education. There is the Minister's constant reiteration that there are no cutbacks, there have been no cutbacks and will be no cutbacks and that any cutbacks which have been occasioned have been caused by the Fianna Fáil Estimate of 1982. I do not wish it to appear that there is anything personal in what I have to say but I will have to expose that claim as an absolute untruth.
The Minister has stated on radio and in the newspapers that there has been no cutback but this is contradicted by the recent report of the National Economic and Social Council, a very representative and responsible group. In their latest report, Economic and Social Policy Assessment, published in January 1985 they state that the percentage of gross national product spent on education has fallen and will continue to fall. That group is representative of Government Departments, trade unions and agricultural organisations. There will be allegations from the other side of the House of exaggeration on this side and reference to the misdeeds of the bad old Fianna Fáil people and the shining deeds of the present Government. Before that hyperbole is embarked upon I would ask for an answer as to whether the NESC are correct in what they say or whether the Minister's statements are correct. The public at large are entitled to know whether this body are telling the truth or whether the Minister in her repeated statements is telling the truth. This is the question to which I want an answer before the gloss is put on whatever the Minister has to say. On one of the mornings in Easter week I distinctly heard the Minister state that there has been no cutback in education.
The National Planning Board were quite emphatic in their view and stated that the board recommend that because of the demographic pressures on the educational system there should be no cutbacks in real current public expenditure in this area in the years up to 1987.
This was one of their comments on the National Plan. Two very responsible bodies have made these statements.
On Saturday, 13 April 1985The Irish Times published a demographic study of Ireland which stated:
...with present trends, every fourth person in Europe would be 65 or older by the end of this century. But the Republic is still a long way from that situation with 30.3 per cent of its population in 1982 still under 14 years compared to about 20 per cent or less in most other EEC countries.
A difference of 10 per cent is quite startling, the figure being 30 per cent here and 20 per cent in Europe. If a statistic is produced tonight showing that we spend so much on education vis-á-vis other European countries it must be set in the context that the number of participants within the educational system bears absolutely no relation to the numbers going through the system in other European countries. We do not have a problem; we have a resource but it is being handled as a problem. There is no commitment by the Government to recognising the demographic reality. Politicians are prone to standing up at party functions and talking about the great resource we have in our young people, but if we cannot adequately cater for that resource we are failing. That is what is happening in the educational system.
Deputy O'Connell spoke about the PR exercise and the way the Government are going about their business by pretending that things are not as they are. That is exactly what is happening on the educational scene. There used to be a time when one chivvied the Department for being tardy or old fashioned but one was always very sure that what they were saying was true and that they had a basic integrity. One was sure that they gave an honest answer, even if long delayed, and that any statistic or report would be quite accurate. This was required because of the nature of the Department and its dealings with people. Absolute confusion has now arisen. I am not being personal when I say to the Minister that I have never met with such anger from people writing to me and telephoning me or among people I meet.
People have become quite incoherent because they cannot express what they feel about what is happening in education. On the one hand the Minister tells us that there are no cutbacks, that curriculum reform is being proceeded with, that there is equality of opportunity for girls and boys, that there is commitment to the disadvantaged and that a comprehensive parents council is being set up. However, the reality is totally different. First, the people were amused but then they became incredulous and now they are very angry. They are anxious to know what is going on, what is the truth behind the facade in Marlborough Steet. There is confusion, uncertainty and alarm throughout all levels of education. The planners, administrators, school managers and teachers' unions as well as the parents and students are totally confused regarding the Minister's intentions. The weeks leading up to examinations are critical for everyone involved in education. Following that extraordinary interview which was reported in The Irish Press and which was followed by the Minister denying, then confirming, then denying and again confirming what she was reported as saying, the parents of young children are totally confused as to what the position will be in September next. They do not know whether children of four will be admitted to primary schools then. Likewise, school managers in post primary schools are unclear as to whether the age of transfer is to be changed. Despite the various papers emanating from the Minister's office the uncertainty increases.
Because of the cuts introduced in respect of pupil-teacher ratios, school managers and teachers at second level do not know what timetable they should prepare for their pupils for next year. They do not know whether they will be allocated the existing number of teachers or what they are to do in the event of a teacher retiring, resigning or dying between now and the beginning of the school year. Neither do they know what subjects or options they may provide. Third level institutions, too, are unclear whether they will be in a position to maintain the services they maintained in the past academic year. Those leaving school after the intermediate and leaving certificate examinations do not know whether they will obtain employment, whether they will be admitted to apprenticeships or training courses or whether they will find places in third level education. All the time the Minister has busied herself in making self-laudatory statements about what she has done for the disadvantaged at primary level, about what she intends doing in the area of curriculum reform or about what she intends doing in regard to eliminating stereotyping on the basis of sex in schools. The reality is that what is happening in the education system is totally different from what the Minister claims is happening. It is a case of everyone but my Johny being out of step. It is like an Alice in Wonderland tale in which everyone but the Minister is wrong.
The inadequate provision for remedial education in primary schools is potentially explosive. I acknowledge the £500,000 that has been allocated in this respect but it is unworthy of the Minister to say that she is the first Minister to allocate special funds to the disadvantaged. I recall at some time between 1977 and 1980, when I was teaching and not involved in politics other than at local level and as a member of the National Executive of my party, the favourable response of the then Minister, Deputy Wilson, to the problem in inner city schools. He sanctioned the employment of additional teachers so as to bring about a favourable pupil-teacher ratio in areas of real disadvantage and in which there was potential danger to young people.
The Minister talks of providing extra teachers in the remedial area but she might tell us where these extra teachers have been placed and also how many such positions remain unfilled. How many children are not being catered for adequately because of the unsatisfactory pupil-teacher ratio? There is a very thin dividing line between the slow learner and the child who needs remedial teaching. Very often a child would not be in the remedial category if it were not for the lack of remedial resources and the lack of capacity to discern the child at an early stage as having a remedial problem. Because of the lack of resources to cater for him after he has been discerned, the child becomes remedial instead of being a slow learner. There is an even thinner line between those needing remedial teaching and those who drop out. Many pupils are leaving school because they do not think they can cope. They are dropouts because of the system; but the problem, no matter which angle we view it from, can be related back to the unfavourable pupil-teacher ratio. The child who drops out is very easy prey for anyone bent on mischief. There is a thin line, too, between the mischief maker and the one who engages in crime. Even if one cannot say clearly now that there is a link between crime and cuts in education there is a very clear line potentially between those two elements.
The Coalition's programme for Government included a commitment to the allocation of remedial teachers to second level schools. What has happened in that regard? We ask that there be a clear commitment to the further provision of remedial teachers at both first and second level education. A statistic published last year indicated that 20 per cent of pupils entering second level education have reading and writing problems. That is a direct result of the lack of investment in remedial education.
I make a very special case this evening for the replacement of caretakers at primary schools. During the past two and a half years the position has been that caretakers who resign or retire from primary schools or who die are not replaced. While that may have been included in the 1982 Estimates, we are now half way through 1985 and times have changed greatly in the meantime. The Minister must realise that the non-replacement of these caretakers is imposing intolerable burdens on school principals who are unable to carry out essential duties because of having to cope with repairs, with vandalism and with various other matters that normally a caretaker would deal with. Several teachers from some of the larger city schools have been in touch with me about this problem. It was very shortsighted to have provided that these caretakers could not be replaced. One would have thought that once the results of that policy became obvious, the Minister would have reversed it. There are many cases of vandalism at schools at night because of the absence of caretakers.
Another problem that results from the embargo on replacements is that parents find it almost impossible to contact a principal in a secondary school because of the absence of a secretary. School secretaries are not been replaced. In many instances it has been pointed out to me that these caretakers lived within the community in which the school was placed. One school principal told me over Easter that the caretaker, on his way to bingo, or for his pint in the local pub, would check the school to see that all was in order. He had a proprietorial interest in the school and in keeping it in order. They were craftsmen of a kind as they had knowledge of carpentry and electrical work and the school was their business. The same applied to secretaries in second level schools who took an enormous load off the school principal. I am the spokeswoman on education for the largest party in the House and I want the Minister to let us know if four year olds will be accepted in primary schools next September.
The Minister constantly repeats that there are no cutbacks in education and I have been accused of indulging in hyperbole by stating that there are. I should like to quote some figures. They are not a public relations exercise, they give the facts. The GNP percentage spent on education has fallen and will continue to fall. The post primary budget has decreased in real financial terms over each of the last three years. To say that the figure increased from £380 million in 1983 to £440 million in 1984 and to £410 million — which was a decrease anyway — in 1985 masks the real figure which is the one in relation to the outturn in relation to the rate of inflation for the year for which the figures are quoted. The shortfall in 1983 at second level was £16 million. The shortfall in 1984 at second level in real terms was £37 million and the shortfall in 1985 at second level in real terms will be £65 million. The total education budget for 1985, non-capital, at primary level, shows an increase of 2 per cent which, in real terms, in minus 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent.
At post primary level it is minus and at higher education level it is minus 6 per cent. The truth is that there is a decrease in funding for primary, post primary and higher education levels and some of the Minister's economies have, to date, been the cause of hundreds of teachers walking the streets. It has created an unprecedented level of large classes as illustrated by the ASTI in their recent survey and has caused important subjects to be dropped. We must face this problem head on. I accept that the Minister is committed to the intrinsic value and the basic long term value of curriculum reform. I too am committed to this and I have said so on many occasions. However, the Minister is not prepared to put her commitments on the line. While very hard work is done by the Curriculum and Examinations Board in regard to the various documents which they have released and which make interesting and heartening reading, how are they going to implement their recom- mendations? Expectations are raised but there is no commitment by the Minister to the necessary finances to fund such reform. The Minister is an innovator at heart but she is not giving expression to it in regard to providing the necessary financial outlay which is needed in regard to such innovation.
In a brief conversation with the Minister on radio recently — she had seven minutes and I had one — from 80 miles away, I said that curriculum reform could not be carried out unless the commitment to resources was there. I was told that there had been marvellous reform and I accept that that is the case. The school in which I taught for years has carried out curriculum reform through various measures but we are talking about reform throughout the whole country and the Minister said on several occasions that she is the only one who has tackled this problem and done anything about it. Nevertheless, in the radio interview, she said that this had been going on for years. She cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot say she is the person who dreamt it up and then say that there has been a real input by teachers and pupils over the last ten years. Any reform that has taken place is due to the good will of school principals and teachers who saw the need for such reform and did something about it. The best kind of curriculum reform is that which is tailored to meet the needs and wishes of the community in which the school is placed.
A fascinating book The Challenge of Change, by Tony Crooks and Jim McKernan was published recently and talks about curriculum development. I understand that the Minister could not come to the launching of this book but she was ably represented by her secretary. The authors say that reform took place during Fianna Fáil Government. Imagine that — and we are accused of not doing anything for education. They surveyed all sorts of principals and teachers throughout the country as to what the response should be in regard to full scale curriculum reform. The answers are very interesting. The majority of principals surveyed by form of questionnaire said that the teacher-pupil ratio was considered the most important constraint by principles. Financial reasons and lack of resources were the next two constraints listed by principals. Nine sources of support were identified and they were all considered very important.
Twelve constraints were identified and, in their replies, principles rates the teacher-pupil ratio, the examination system, lack of time to implement curriculum innovations and lack of in-service education and training as the most significant. Of course we will be told that this is not true and the Minister will quote selective statistics to prove otherwise. This is a reputable book published under the aegis of the Institute of Public Administration, and with the blessing of the Department of Education. The results have been tabulated and we will have more to say about this in the latter part of the debate in which we will talk exclusively about curriculum reform. I am sure all this research has been done scientifically and correctly and the replies indicate that there will be no growth — in fact there will be regression — in the area of curriculum reform if the Minister does not give a committment to increasing finances and a turnabout of the adverse pupil-teacher ratio.
People are confused regarding the haphazard policies emanating from the Minister. I have been invited, through the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I thank the Minister, to a day-long seminar in the RDS tomorrow on equality of opportunity for girls and boys in Irish education, and some very wonderful speakers are listed for it. They are all very eminent but most of them are of one political faith. We will be assailed and assaulted in the newspapers on the days following on all that has been done to remove discrimination against girls in education, but it will be totally untrue. I have spoken to principals and teachers and and I have met young women who wish to take up subjects unrelated to what normally goes on in their school and cannot do so. Because of cutbacks, in the pupil-teacher ratio their school cannot employ a teacher to teach honours mathematics, woodwork, physics, chemistry or whatever has been cut back. Teachers leaving means that course subjects must be concentrated on. What the Minister is saying about removing discrimination against girls in education is all humbug.
The Joint Committee on Women's Rights issued a report to the effect that the major restraint in the promotion of equality of educational access for girls in subjects unrelated to what they had hitherto taken up was due to the lack of teachers and resources and the pupil-teacher ratio. It is all very well to make sweetie statements saying that the teachers will be so co-operative, the students will be co-operative and we will all be co-operative. It is ridiculous, because the only way they can be co-operative is to get the provision to supply the teachers to enable the subjects to be taken up in the classrooms. You cannot be co-operative if you lose a teacher in a discipline. How can a teacher of 50 pupils turn around to teaching honours mathematics? I know of a school where honours mathematics cannot be taken, and three or four brilliant girls attending that school are fit to go on and take a very high degree in a related science subject. The distance between them and the nearest boys' school offering honours mathematics is logistically not on because of traffic problems and those girls lack the means to get to that school.
Therefore, let us cut out all of this talk that everything is being done to promote this type of equality and curriculum reform. Numerous noises are being made and we hear many speeches, with a great deal of publicity, and seminars are being set up and drums are being beaten, but we are becoming very tired of that music, of hearing that we must go back to 1982 to realise that due to Fianna Fáil we have none of these things and that here was no commitment whatever to this advantage until the Coalition came in in 1982.
Let us cast our minds back over 20 years and realise the huge strides that have been made in education. One has only to take up a book such as John Coolahan's Irish Education History and Structure and to go back to 1958 and trace from Deputy Hillery's time to the time of the late Deputy Donagh O'Malley and all the other innovators in their day to know how trite and stupid many of the speeches and much of the comment and the blurb are. It is not education. I do not know what it is. It is education by delusion so that the masses will be in some way indoctrinated into believing that huge advances in education have been made and will continue to be made. The reality is different.
"What will Fianna Fáil do?" is the question asked in debates time and again in this House. If Fianna Fáil were in power what would they do? The Government ask how we would go about doing what we say we want done if we were in power. I will tell the House exactly what we will do. Fianna Fáil in Government will work towards a reversal of the pupil-teacher ratio until it is brought back to the 1982 levels. We will ensure an adequate career guidance service and the provision of a proper remedial service in schools. In common with other social and national organisations we believe that the extent of provision, the standards and the achievements of our educational system must be upheld and improved upon rather than diminished as at present. Above all we want to see true provision for the disadvantaged, for remedial classes and for career guidance. The issues which were raised in 1982 and which remained in 1983, 1984 and 1985 the Taoiseach has said in the national plan cannot be altered and will be adhered to rigorously. Therefore, vice-principals at second level will be ex quota only in schools of more than 250 pupils — that is a very important issue; guidance teachers will be ex quota only in schools of more than 500 pupils; the pupil-teacher ratio will be increased. The scale of grants towards the cost of clerical assistants I have spoken about already; and of course, school transport charges were introduced.
The cutbacks in the pupil-teacher ratio have meant that not alone the subjects I have mentioned, such as honours mathematics and physics and so on and in many instances continental languages such as German which are so important in the EC, cannot be taken up because principals have had to juggle and jiggle with the remaining teachers; the course subjects, Irish, English, mathematics, history and geography at junior level and perhaps biology as the equivalent at senior level have become overstretched because of cutbacks. Therefore, two things occur. We have an erosion of subject options while we are told increasingly that the main object of education is to be versatile and to have many skills, to have mobility of mind and an idea that one can move from one career option to another as they retract and expand, that one must at least have a chance to take up various subject choices. The basic subjects which should be taught very adequately require a rapport between students and teachers which is not taking place either because of the inadequacies of the ratio.
Our basic aim in this debate is (a) to point out the situation as it is and (b) to indicate the untruths of what we are being assailed with. I have quoted statistics which I stand over, particularly those of the NESC which indicated that there have been and will be real cutbacks in the educational system. Most of all I want to expose the myth that all is well, that everything is sweet and everybody is happy within the educational system. People are becoming more and more angry by the day, but they would not be as angry were it put to them that we are sorry we cannot do so-and-so, we cannot supply you with A, B, C or D. Instead they are being told that they are getting adequate funding, there are no problems. When the Minister is replying apart from her brief, I would be glad if I could have the answers, in particular about the NESC figure of the funding for education.
