Thank you for allowing me to raise this matter. I sought to raise the question of the anomalies that exist in the treatment of schools that are regarded as disadvantaged for staffing purposes when compared with schools regarded as disadvantaged for grant aid purposes, on Tuesday, Wednesday and today. This is evidenced by Scoil Fhursa, it is to that school I wish to direct my remarks but they are of general application. I also want to thank the Minister of State for coming into the House as it is obviously not in his brief. I take it that the Minister for Education or her Minister of State are not available. However, the Minister present will find it a rewarding experience because the difficulties that occur apply also in areas of his own constituency.
This issue was raised at Question Time last Tuesday and there was a tendency for all of us to be diverted to historical excursions as we considered who had started what scheme and so on. That is not a profitable exercise because it is accepted on all sides that there are quirks and anomalies. I want us to explore together how we can address those anomalies.
In the Education Estimates this time last year the Government proposed a very serious disimprovement in the pupil-teacher ratio, it was to be reduced by three units. That gave rise to outrage throughout the country, parents marched, schools organised disruption days and the Dáil debated the matter. You will recall that, following the debate, and specifically the fact that the Government were defeated in the vote, discussions took place under the auspices of the Programme for National Recovery. The effect was that an agreement was worked out between the Government and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. The agreement still provides for a disimprovement in the pupil-teacher ratio but, in a number of respects, it ameliorated the worst excesses of the original proposal.
The other part of the background is that for many years successive Governments believed that it is not possible to treat every national school in the same way and that some schools required more favourable treatment than others. The reason is that there were schools in areas regarded as disadvantaged and there were various indicators of what "disadvantaged" would be — above average levels of unemployment in the area and so on. The difficulties arise from the fact that not one but two schemes existed. There is one scheme whereby some schools that were designated and identified as being in disadvantaged areas received grant aid treatment which was more favourable than would otherwise have been the case. For ease, I refer to them as the grant aid schools. The last Government were anxious to improve the pupil-teacher ratio — an attitude in contrast to the present Administration — but the resources were not available for a general improvement. A cadre of teachers was funded and they were assigned to schools regarded as disadvantaged. The problem is that the two categories of schools are not identical. Not all schools regarded as disadvantaged for grant aid purposes are regarded as disadvantaged for staffing purposes. What are the consequences of that? They are that the schools regarded as disadvantaged only for grant aid purposes are doubly unfortunate. Why? First, because they do not qualify for concessionary teachers and second because they operate on the less favourable pupil-teacher ratio provided for in Circular 23/88. A school that everyone says is disadvantaged, that people have shown they believe is disadvantaged, by regarding it as appropriate for grant aid concessions, is treated in these two material respects less favourably than other schools.
When that is applied in practice some really bizzare situations occur and some of them would not appear in a "Yes Minister" plot because not even Mr. Jay at his most adventurous would dare to conceive of some of the situations which have arisen from applying this.
The example I want to draw to the attention of the House is the situation in which Scoil Fhursa finds itself. Kilmore West, Cromcastle, is a substantial parish in the Coolock area. It has a boy's school Scoil Fhursa, and right beside it is Scoil Íde, the girls' school. Naturally the families of the parish send their daughters to Scoil Íde and their sons to Scoil Fhursa so brothers and sisters attend the same complex. The girls' school is regarded as disadvantaged but the boys' school is not, notwithstanding the fact that many educationalists would argue that the incidence of learning and discipline difficulties are much higher in the case of boys. However, I make no particular point in that regard because it seems to me that a situation in which a school complex exists, where the girls are disadvantaged and the boys are not, is so palpably nonsensical that no one could stand over it.
What are the consequences of this? Because the boys' school is not regarded as disadvantaged for staffing purposes, it is set to lose two teachers. If it was regarded as disadvantaged it would keep them. That will happen in an area that badly requires support and assistance from the Department. That has been recognised because Scoil Fhursa and Scoil Íde are regarded as disadvantaged for grant aid purposes. Scoil Íde is regarded as disadvantaged for staffing purposes as well and all the schools in the locality in the neighbouring parishes of Bonnybrook and Darndale are regarded as disadvantaged but because of some curious quirk of history the boys' school, Scoil Fhursa has been left out of this. That school is already put to the pin of its collar. It has classes of up to 40 pupils, notwithstanding the fact that the agreement between the INTO and the Department of Education was meant to ensure that no school would have more than 39. pupils in any individual class. That is not the case in Scoil Fhursa where one class at least has 40 pupils and another has 39. Because of this very strange distinction between the two categories of disadvantage, the school is now about to lose two teachers. The question is what is to be done about that. That is what the principal and the parents want to know. They asked the Department who were very helpful with their advice. They told them to merge the two sixth classes, make it the maximum size possible and then take a couple of boys and disperse them in every other class in the school. That is hopelessly unreal and says a lot about whoever dreamt up that as a solution.
There is a further aspect to this which, if anything, exacerbates what is already an intolerable situation. The number of teachers a school is entitled to under the present system is determined by its enrolment figures for 30 December 1987. On that day Scoil Fhursa had 293 pupils on the roll. On the basis of the new quota arrangements that involves the loss of a teacher. Today that school has 299 pupils and even on the basis of the current pupil-teacher ratio the present figures entitles it to an extra teacher. If the Department go on their merry way what will happen is that the two teachers will be let go and one of them may or may not be reappointed in a year's time. That will cause intolerable problems for a school that is already finding it extremely difficult to manage. I mentioned Scoil Fhursa and I appeal to the Minister in relation to it but I mention it only by way of an example. These sorts of anomalies are occurring all over the country and they all have their origin in the fact that we are operating on the basis of these two different criteria for defining disadvantage.
When we discussed this matter the last day the Minister made much of the fact that she is not to blame for there being two different criteria defining disadvantage. I am not blaming anyone for the fact that there are two different schemes. Both of them were introduced at different times, both, I am sure, were well intentioned and both were designed to respond to the particular needs of schools that objectively required preferential treatment. What has given rise to the present difficulties is the fact that the agreement signed by the Minister with the INTO and implemented in Circular 23/88, by using the concept of disadvantage for staffing purposes rather than the wider definition, excludes from consideration many schools that the Department accept are seriously disadvantaged, to the extent that they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I have given one example and my colleague, Deputy Mary Flaherty, as I indicated this morning when I sought to raise this matter, will draw the Minister's attention to another example, one that, if anything, produces even more unfortunate consequences.
