asked the Minister for Education the number of additional primary teachers it would take to reduce the primary pupil-teacher ratio to the level operating in Northern Ireland; the plans he has to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio generally; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pupil-Teacher-Ratio.
17.
It is estimated that it would require the appointment of some 3,000 additional teachers, at a cost in excess of £28 million per annum at current rates, to bring the average pupil-teacher ratio in national schools in line with that obtaining in Northern Ireland.
As stated in paragraph 3.7 of the Programme for Action in Education 1984-1987, the Government are committed to improving the pupil-teacher ratio in national schools as soon as financial circumstances permit.
Will the Minister indicate how the pupil-teacher ratio here compares with that of Northern Ireland? Will the Minister say if the global ratio applied here should be varied to suit local needs, particularly in disadvantaged areas?
The ratio I gave is an average pupil-teacher ratio and has to be calculated over the country as a whole. The average figure may not be representative of schools in the areas to which the Deputy referred, no more than the pupil-teacher ratio in a small rural school. It may be distorted in some urban areas because of the fact that four year olds are attending schools and perhaps they might be better off at home or in play schools. The average ratio in Northern Ireland in 1985 was 23.3:1 and in the Republic in the 1984-85 school year it was 27.1:1.
In the early part of his answer the Minister said that Building on Reality envisaged a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio if and when finances permitted it. Could the Minister say when the Government intend to make finances available for a gradual reduction in this area? Could he also say whether that is still their objective? I was alarmed to hear the Minister say that four year olds might be better off at home or in play schools in view of the commitment on all sides of the House to allowing four year olds to attend school. Could he explain the reference to play schools?
The Government's commitment to reducing the ratio still stands and even in straitened economic circumstances, which we inherited, it has been dropping slowly and steadily over the past three years, from 27.5 in 1982-83 to 27.1 in 1984-85. As resources permit, the ratio will continue to improve. Deputy De Rossa raised the question of the numbers in classes in disadvantaged areas where the average number might be higher than the national average ratio. In some urban areas averages can be distorted in particular schools because of the presence of a large number of four year old children consistent with the decision to admit children of that age into primary schools. I do not disagree with this decision. I merely make the point that the provision of schooling for four year olds could be done in various ways. Some educationalists recommend play schools while others think it is better to take them in at the commencement of the primary cycle. However, we are not talking about educational facilities for four year olds but of the pupil-teacher ratio and I was making the point that the average can be distorted in some areas because of the circumstances peculiar to a particular area.
Would the Minister confirm that the appointment or retention of teachers is based on the Government's pupil-teacher ratio figure, because numbers in certain schools may fall for some reason, particularly in disadvantaged areas which can result in the loss of teachers? Does the Minister agree that teachers should be allocated to particular schools taking account of specific circumstances instead of applying an overall pupil-teacher ratio figure?
If surplus teachers were available in the areas in which they were needed that would be an ideal solution but it does not often happen in that way. I am not au fait with the details but I understand that there are arrangements with the teaching organisations regarding setting up a panel of teachers who are surplus to requirements so that they will be placed in suitable areas which might not necessarily be the areas of high need to which the Deputy referred.
Deputy De Rossa rose.
It appears to the Chair that Deputies are in a great hurry until their own questions are reached and they do not mind being anchored there for the rest of Question Time.
I am not pursuing a vendetta against you or anybody else in this matter. I am simply making the point that the arrangement concerning panels is fine in relation to teachers but it does not necessarily serve the needs of the pupils in schools which are losing teachers. I should like the Minister to look at the allocation of teachers to schools in different areas and perhaps he would introduce new criteria as to the numbers in these areas based on the needs of particular schools?
I will keep the matter under review.