Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 May 1991

Vol. 409 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Newbridge (Kildare) School.

Mr. Dukes

I am grateful to the Chair for allowing me the opportunity to raise this matter. On 3 September 1990 the senior part of Scoil Mhuire, Ballymany — third, fourth, fifth and sixth classes — had an enrolment of 545 pupils. Up to the middle of last year the school had 15 assistant teachers and an application had been made to the Department of Education for the appointment of a sixteenth assistant. That appointment would have been fully justified on the basis of the numbers enrolled in the school.

For the previous ten years, the school had operated a programme in which children with special educational needs — amounting to about 7 per cent of the total enrolment in the school — spent two years on the sixth class programme in order to prepare them adequately for second level education. More precisely, the programme focused on the needs of younger children with special educational needs who had completed fifth class. That group amounted to between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of children completing fifth class in the school. That programme was set up as a response to a request from parents, in conjunction with the staff and management of the school, to serve a very real need in the area.

Unemployment in the school's catchment area is in the region of 12 per cent. In one part of the catchment area, comprising two housing estates with a total of 388 houses, unemployment runs at 56 per cent. Social workers in the catchment area, together with local clergy, have noted a marked increase in the number of single parent families, the incidence of marital breakdown, the level of child abuse, alcoholism, gambling and other problems affecting family and community life. These were among the considerations which led the school to set up the programme which I have described. That special programme was provided only to pupils with a particular educational need and the selection was based solely on educational principles. It had the complete backing of the second level schools in the town. Many children who otherwise would have failed, were enabled by the programme to cope with the demands of second level education. The evidence suggests that the programme has been responsible for a significant decrease in dropout numbers at second level. Having been in operation for ten years, it was regarded by management, staff and parents as an established tradition and an integral part of the school's operation.

When the school authorities made their application for a 16th assistant teacher, the Department of Education, ten years after the programme had been instituted, informed the school that the programme was in breach of Circular 10/67 concerning the retention and promotion of pupils. This aspect of the matter had, apparently, not occurred to the Department during that period, even though enrolment was rising, additional assistants were being appointed, and the Minister for Education herself had agreed to open a further extension to the school, though in the event other matters prevented her from attending and a senior inspector carried out the function instead. He brought back to the Minister the good wishes of the parents as well as some messages from them.

When it came to the request for the appointment of a 16th assistant, the Department quite bluntly said that consideration of that appointment would be deferred until the school "regularised" itself to conform with the provisions of Circular 10/67. After ten years of operation of the programme this was, to put it mildly, rather a brutal response from the Department of Education. The school authorities contested this and had lengthy exchanges of correspondence with the Department. The Department, however, stuck rigidly to its line and, in the end, the school authorities had no option but to give in to the Department and terminate the programme in order to secure the appointment of the 16th assistant teacher.

In May 1985, the then Minister for Education announced that the second level programme was being increased to six years. Against that background, the Scoil Mhuire authorities decided to reexamine the programme. Separate meetings were held with the management and staff of the second level schools in the town. Each of those schools requested that Scoil Mhuire continue with the extra year and sent representatives to talk to a general meeting of the parents of pupils in Scoil Mhuire on the definite advantages of the extra year from the point of view of primary and second level education.

In June 1986, the school authorities submitted a request to the Department of Education to have the school recognised as serving an area of disadvantage. That was followed up by a further request in May 1988, and a further detailed study in 1990. None of this seemed to have any effect on the Department of Education. I took the matter up with the Minister for Education, but her response was rigid. By letter of 23 April last, she informed me, in effect, that the agreement of the INTO to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress laid down staffing levels for national schools and precluded the treatment of any individual school on a different basis. Fine Gael opposed that programme. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the position of the school. If she finds that the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the agreement of the INTO thereto constitutes an obstacle to solving the problem of meeting a real educational need she should reconsider her position on the matter of reclassifying the school as one serving a disadvantaged area and put back in place a programme which has been of immense value to the children in the area.

Minister for Education (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I thank Deputy Dukes for raising this matter. Naturally a person who puts forward a case gives his point of view according to his information, and the Deputy has detailed the matter down the years. I noted with interest that despite the fact that the Minister of the day in 1985 and 1986 was from the Deputy's party there was no movement in that regard. The Deputy stated that quite clearly. I acknowledge that they did not see fit to move then and so the position has gone on.

There are two questions here including the question of the extra educational facility which was long established in that school. As the Deputy put it, this facility served the children well and fitted them out for later education. At present we provide the longest period of primary schooling in any country in Europe. The provision of seventh class, or whatever it was called, was a great feature in Ireland. In my time as a teacher many primary schools catered for seventh class because there was great difficulty in getting further education. With the introduction of free education full seventh classes became the exception rather than the norm. The circular on retention was then introduced and we all know about that. In the eight years of primary schooling there is provision for retention if one needs it for particular purposes. By and large the whole question of seventh class has come increasingly under scrutiny.

I do not decry the very good work that took place under that educational programme. Nothing is lost in education. The longer a person stays at school the more educated he becomes, but when administering 3,500 primary schools, whether one likes it or not, there has to be a relatively uniform level of application, particularly regarding the number of years. Otherwise the system would get out of hand. However, that is not to decry the good work that took place under that programme.

The second matter under debate is that the school be deemed to be a school in a disadvantaged area. That is a separate issue and one that can be considered. The analysis for deciding on schools which are deemed to be schools in disadvantaged areas rests with the management, the parents, the Department and the unions who have drawn up criteria. That is the only way to proceed. We also work out a points rating. This sounds very cut and dried but again it has to be done because the demand is so much greater than the service that can be provided. Therefore, the only equitable way to proceed is to work along a series of headings. That is how the posts under this heading were allocated last year. It is above board and can be scrutinised through the various agencies. Any Deputy who wishes to discuss this matter with me privately, not about a particular school but about the broad criteria of the headings under which the points rating is made, is welcome to do so. I do not like to talk about particular schools but it is necessary to explain how one is deemed to be disadvantaged. The various headings are then considered and a points rating is issued. I will request the committee to consider the position of Scoil Mhuire in Ballymany, Newbridge, under that heading and I will communicate further with the Deputy on the issue.