asked the Minister for Education if she has any plans to extend, alter or amend the free book scheme in primary and post-primary schools.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Free Book Scheme.
5.
I am pleased that it has been found possible to provide for an increase in the provision for assistance under the schemes for primary and post-primary school pupils in the current school year, that is for necessitous pupils at primary and post-primary levels.
A Cheann Comhairle, for the purpose of supplementaries, is it permitted that I deal first with that part of the question that refers specifically to primary schools and that I might deal subsequently with post-primary schools? Is that acceptable to the Chair and the Minister?
The Deputy might put her question then we shall be able to rule on it.
The position in relation to the grant for necessitous pupils in the primary sector is this, that each child who is deemed to be necessitous is given an annual grant of £6, that is the amount the State provides towards the provision of school books. In view of the fact that that grant has remained static since 1985, since then the cost of school books has increased considerably, just as the economic difficulties encountered by families whose school-going children could now be deemed to be necessitous have increased enormously due to the rise in the level of unemployment, does the Minister consider that satisfactory in the face of those variables? What plans, if any, has she to raise the amount of that grant, bringing it into line with the cost of books and the ever growing need of parents to provide books for their school-going children, especially those parents experiencing great economic hardship? That is my first question.
I am sorry, Deputy. We must have regard to brevity as well as relevance. That was a very long question.
Indeed.
The Chair has always ruled that questions in omnibus form ought to be avoided.
There appears to be an enormous defect in my own schooling, a Cheann Comhairle. I am afraid I failed to make my point with any greater economy of words. Nonetheless may I request that my question be answered? I am quite sincere about this issue whatever about my style of questioning.
The answers to the questions put.
The Deputy asked a question about aid for books for necessitous pupils in primary schools. Again, for the record — because I like to be fair to all sides — Deputy Quill did say the grant had remained static since 1985. That is not quite accurate. Perhaps I might be permitted to give the relevant figures. In 1985 the provision of aid to necessitous pupils for books in the primary schools sector amounted to £783,000
I asked about the grant per pupil.
I just want to give the global figure because it is money about which we are talking. I might repeat that in 1985 the figure was £783,000; in 1986, £826,000 and in 1987, £846,000. The figure remained static between the years 1987 and 1988 when it stood at £846,000. The figure for 1989 is £982,000 which, in a period in which there has been the lowest inflation rate in 20 years, represents the highest percentage increase ever granted. Of course the Deputy will contend that it is not sufficient and it is not. As I have said repeatedly, we would all wish that there were always endless funds for allocation in the education sector. However, I must point out that this is a priority of mine, as is the increase in the literacy allocation to VECs which constitutes an increase of 16.5 per cent.
The Deputy spoke about the grant per pupil. It is up to the principal of each school to decide how she or he will allocate the moneys available for this purpose which is normally allocated per child but it is up to the principal to give an extra grant if the degree of necessity is very high or by way of the loan of books or a combination of grant and loan. It is left to the boards of management and principals of schools who I might add carry out their duties very effectively.
What is the precise grant per pupil this year? Second, is the Minister satisfied that a flat grant to all necessitous pupils in primary schools is the best way to approach the problem, bearing in mind that a six year old would have an annual outlay on books of approximately £8 to £10 whereas an 11 year old, at the tail end of the primary school system would require £35 to £40 in September for books? Does the Minister think a flat across the board grant to every school pupil, irrespective of age or the outlay on books is the best way to meet the needs of necessitous pupils?
I am sure that could be a matter for ongoing debate. The Deputy's question was about the flat rate, and I told her it was £6 and it is now £7. This gives rise to the percentage increase that I have referred to. The Department do not, as a rule, interfere in individual cases, or question a principal's decision. This has kept the scheme above criticism, because we could be accused of undue interference if we were to dictate to a principal, or in a general way to a board of management, how the grants were to be allocated. Principals run their schools and they know the pupils who are really in need as distinct from those covered by a departmental diktat.
Deputies will appreciate that I cannot dwell unduly long on any one question. I will hear Deputy M. Higgins.
Has the Minister considered the special circumstances that have arisen as a result of changes in the curriculum which necessitate new books? On a previous occasion when we were discussing a question like this, the Minister undertook to have some feasibility studies carried out on the provision of books that might be rotated, like a library system. Finally, is it not a fact that a number of school principals have contacted her Department saying they find the business of allocating an inadequate amount among the poor in their area to be an invidious task, which many of them find they are unable to do?
First, I will answer the Deputy's final question. No individual principal has contacted me directly, however they may have contacted the Department — I make that distinction. However, if they were to contact me I would be willing to listen to them. The Deputy raised the major issue of post-primary books. It would be more invidious for me to interfere with the principal of each school and to tell her or him their business in that respect.
For the first time in a long number of years, we have given a substantial increase in the book grant scheme for necessitous pupils. This arises directly from the Programme for National Recovery which asked that the needs of the disadvantaged be kept always under review.
The Deputy has asked about the post-primary scheme which is included in Deputy Wyse's question. I will give the precise figures, the total grant for primary school books for necessitous pupils this year is just short of £1 million, and for the post-primary sector it is a little under £2 million. In 1985 the grant for post-primary pupils stood at £1,485,000 increasing to £1,570,000 in 1986, to £1,589,000 in 1987, remaining at £1,589,000 in 1988 and increasing to £1,912,000 in 1989, an increase of 20.3 per cent. This increase is quite deliberate in view of the upcoming changes in the post-primary syllabi and curriculum and in the light of changes in the junior certificate examination embracing the intermediate certificate and the group certificate.
Since I last spoke to Deputy Higgins on this matter, I had a meeting with the booksellers association coming up to Christmas last and expressed my very strong viewpoint, that while we are living in a free, competitive market and their job is to sell books, I said I did not approve of wholesale changes across the full spectrum of subjects. I am keeping this under review. I have met with the parent bodies, the managerial bodies and the unions on the same issue. I feel very strongly about this issue because I was always assertive about the need for more and more books, but a 20 per cent increase in 1989 for the post-primary free school book scheme brings it to a little short of £2 million.
We have dealt with this question at some considerable length to the disadvantage of other questions and other Members who are waiting for answers to their questions. I will hear very brief supplementaries from Deputy Birmingham and Deputy Quill.
In relation to post-primary books in post-primary schools, would the Minister's Department take action to ensure that as far as possible schools in the same catchment area which are likely to have pupils of the same family would opt for the same texts? Would she accept that that is particularly important given the greater discretion that would be available because of the new junior syllabus? Could her Department do something in that regard?
That is a fair point. I would not be able to say to school book sellers that they have got to do this but I could suggest it at a meeting with the joint managerial body and with the IVEA of the two sectors at post-primary level and also with the parents and they, through their own agencies, could suggest it. It is a fair point and one worth looking at.
Deputy Quill, a final supplementary please and a brief one.
Would the Minister accept that with the introduction of the new junior certificate syllabus and with the putting in place of at least seven new syllabi in the post-primary schools next September, this will necessitate the provision of a number of new books for every parent who has children at that stage in school and that parents whose children are not deemed to be necessitous from the point of view of making them eligible——
I did ask for brevity, I must insist on brevity now.
—— will be put to the pin of their collar to provide school books for their children and if in the event of giving recognition——
I am sorry Deputy Quill. I think the Deputy has made her point.
Has the Minister any proposal to set up an alternative scheme such as the introduction of a school lending library?
I want to deal with other questions. I will hear the Minister's reply.
As the Deputy is aware, some schools already run a lending scheme.
A number do not.
It is not an order that one could give. When you send out circulars you are accused of being centralised and when you do not send them it is another matter. It is not a matter on which I could give a diktat from the Department but it is certainly one that should be expanded.
It should be encouraged.
It should definitely be encouraged. The fact that books could be lent sounds perfectly reasonable. Perhaps in my discussions and at teachers unions conferences things like that can be aired. Regarding the matter of the seven new syllabi which would require a consequent range of books I would not accept that every new syllabus will require a complete change. Many can be done from the existing range. Many of them give a welcome freedom to the teacher and to the pupil to choose from an already existing anthology or an existing book. In the light of the fact that there will be changes and a need for books in September I was motivated to press for the handsome increase of 23.4 per cent bringing the amount to £2 million.