In recent years the Minister has certainly increased the geographical ground now covered by remedial teachers. Additional schools have been added to existing ones to create clusters, with additional day schools not served by remedial teachers to date. In short, the remedial service has been spread more thinly across the board while a fundamental question marks hangs over its quality. To put it simply, too few teachers are coping with too many pupils within too great a geographical area.
In reply to a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy Killeen last year on the remedial education service in County Clare the Minister replied that 63 out of 122 schools in the county had access to remedial teachers whereas 62 schools had no such access to a remedial service. The student population for those who had access was approximately 8,941 and in the 62 schools without any remedial service the school population was 3,494, a pattern replicated throughout rural areas. In accordance with statistics prepared by the INTO, small rural schools are being continuously discriminated against by the Minister's policy initiatives on remedial education. Small, rural schools in particular are short of proper remedial education, in some cases the children attending them do not have access to remedial teachers and, in the majority of cases, have very limited access.
We are all aware of the large cluster of schools that have to be served by one remedial teacher. We have had the example of one remedial teacher having to serve anything between four and nine schools. It is not realistic to suggest that any remedial teacher can adequately service all children in such schools in need of remedial teaching; they are not in a position to give the type of coverage and service required.
It is estimated that approximately 10 per cent of children in any given school are in need of remedial education, a conservative estimate since modern research shows that children can experience a wide variety of difficulties and learning problems in school and that many more now require access to remedial teaching, particularly in their early years.
In addition, the overall position is not being helped by the appalling state of the schools' psychological service, illustrated by a recent report prepared by IMPACT, which demonstrated that there is no comprehensive schools psychological service. Without the help of school psychologists, many children are not being identified as being in need of remedial teaching in the first instance and many more await months, even years, for assessment. A proper psychological service is a prerequisite to an effective remedial education service. Most teachers to whom one talks consider the present psychological service to be totally inadequate. Very often children are referred to psychologists when a teacher has difficulty in identifying a problem, or when a teacher believes that referral to a special school or class may be the most appropriate for a child with disabilities.
Parents often request schools to refer their children for psychological assistance. Very often psychologists can confirm the opinions of teachers or parents and diagnose the specific nature of an individual child's problem. However, it is quite clear that entire generations of children with disabilities are being denied access to a proper psychological service. The Government has made no meaningful effort to provide a nationwide, school-based psychological service. Admittedly, two pilot projects have been established in primary schools in west Dublin and Tipperary, placing very strong emphasis on the prevention of difficulties in addition to case work. From the INTO perspective, the success of these projects was due to the fact that the psychologists appointed had widespread teaching experience. Teachers found that psychologists had a good understanding of the circumstances prevailing in the classroom which was reflected in their approach to assessment, case work, referrals and recommendations for class-room strategies. There is a clear case for the Minister's Department to ensure that psychologists, with primary teaching experience, are appointed to the service.
It is regrettable that last year the Minister reneged on her commitment to appoint additional psychologists to that service. At the current rate of development, the INTO estimates it will take at least ten years before a comprehensive, school-based psychological service will be established here. That is totally unsatisfactory for many children for whom the service will come too late. Clearly, to ensure a proper remedial education provision the schools' psychological service will have to be expanded immediately on a regional basis to provide a comprehensive, school-based service in all primary schools, in tandem with the provision of the necessary support to the remedial schools service.
Ideally educational psychologists with primary teaching experience should be appointed to such a service, which should have the authority and responsibility to refer pupils to clinical psychologists, counsellors or other support services as required. The study carried out by IMPACT showed a devastating shortage of school psychologists. This is a damning indictment of the Minister for Education's lack of commitment to the development of a school psychological service. This comprehensive study concluded that the majority of pupils have little access to a school psychological service and that 80 per cent of primary school children have had no contact whatsoever with educational psychologists. This means that many children with difficulties are not identified early enough. As their problems develop these children become demotivated and demoralised. Some of these children never receive remedial education as they have not been identified as having problems in the first instance.
By the time these children enter second level education the battle has been lost. The psychologist-pupil ratio in primary schools which are served by the system is 1:7,500. The IMPACT study highlights the lack of such a service, particularly in rural areas. While the school psychological service is worthy of a separate Private Members' motion, I place particular emphasis on it in my contribution because of its fundamental importance in backing up, supplementing and supporting a proper integrated remedial education service. It is not possible to have one without the other.
The Minister has engaged very expensive public relations consultants to advance her case in terms of the reform she claims to have introduced in education, particularly for the disadvantaged. The more teachers and Deputies one talks to the more one realises that the service as it exists is a sham. This is no reflection on teachers who are doing their best. However, we ask too much of them and expect them to cover too many schools and to help too many students. We should face up to this reality and do something about it. The Minister is codding the public and engaging in a cosmetic exercise. The reality on the ground is very different from that outlined in press releases and in replies to parliamentary questions.
A number of remedial teachers have given me examples of typical caseloads. One teacher in the south-east serves four national schools and has a caseload of 60 pupils. She states that even though a significant number of pupils are in need of remedial education not all of them can be given access to a remedial teacher. This teacher, in consultation with the school authorities, had to take difficult decisions and decided to target resources towards the seven to nine age group. She visits the four schools twice every week and spends an extra half day at each school every fourth week. She does not regard this as sufficient and believes these children require daily attention. In addition, there is very little one-to-one teaching as she does not have enough time. She takes children in groups for 30 to 45 minutes in order to save time.
Remedial teachers normally deal with three categories of children — slow learners, children with special learning difficulties and children with special needs. Further integration has meant that children with special needs who require remedial education form an increasing part of the school-going population. Remedial teachers have very little time to deal with children with specific learning difficulties. Children who suffer from dyslexia and other learning difficulties are not given the degree of attention and expert guidance they require.
Another teacher serves two schools and has a caseload of 50 pupils, most of whom he sees two or three times a week. The combined enrolment of the two schools is approximately 375 and his complaints are similar. For example, he does not have enough time to deal with children who have problems with maths, the necessary resources are not provided and essential back-up services are not in place.
The normal work of a remedial teacher includes the screening and testing of pupils, record keeping etc. They also have responsibility for the development of school policy on remedial teaching for children with special needs. It is generally recognised and accepted that liaison between parents and remedial teachers is an essential part of the overall service and meetings between them are, therefore, very important. Remedial teachers who cover two schools are clearly faced with enormous difficulties. I have heard complaints that pupils are not being given the attention they require and deserve.
A third teacher is equally adamant that he does not have time to deal with all aspects of remedial education. Pupils in his catchment area who have problems with maths are also a casualty. He covers three schools with an enrolment of approximately 400 pupils and does not feel he has enough time to deal with children with special learning difficulties.
The guidelines issued by the Department of Education bear very little relationship to the reality on the ground or the problems with which remedial teachers have to deal. For example, they suggest that remedial teachers should deal only with children on the lower rung of the intelligence ladder. This excludes children above the lower rung who still require some remedial teaching. A general guideline is that the caseload of a remedial teacher should be approximately 40 pupils. However, the average caseload of most remedial teachers, particularly those in rural schools, is much higher than 40. The guidelines suggest that in the case of a cluster of schools the caseload of 40 should be reduced by two for each additional school, subject to a maximum reduction of eight pupils. This again bears no relationship to reality. Most remedial teachers and experts in the field regard a caseload of 38 pupils between two schools as excessive and believe it should be reduced.
The motion deals with the utilisation of the demographic dividend. Each year since 1987 the Department has had teachers available for redeployment. The Minister does not often draw attention to the demographic dividend, which basically means that a significant number of teachers become available every year for redeployment as a result of falling enrolments. In 1987 the then Government and Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, decided, in consultation with the social partners, to retain any excess teachers who became available because of falling enrolments within the system and to redeploy them. This was used to appoint additional remedial teachers and to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio gradually over the period of the Programme for National Recovery, the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. The demographic dividend has also been used to develop the home-school liaison scheme initiated by Deputy Mary O'Rourke and to appoint resource and visiting teachers. The Minister does not always refer to this in press releases as it takes from the gloss on her announcement of the appointment of additional remedial teachers.
This brings me to the decision taken this year to utilise the demographic dividend in a certain way. According to replies to parliamentary questions tabled by me and other Deputies, there were approximately 346 teachers available for redeployment for the year commencing September 1996. The Minister was very late in publishing the staffing schedules and indicated that she would devote all the teachers to the Breaking the Cycle initiative. Her non-consultative approach to this issue led to industrial action in a number of schools and to the threat of industrial action by the INTO in schools which would lose teachers as a result of her stubborn adherence to this decision. The threat of industrial action and the successful lobbying by all sides, particularly the INTO, forced the Minister to retreat. We ended up with the Breaking the Cycle initiative which allocated approximately 135 of the 346 teachers to 35 urban schools and approximately 118, in 25 clusters of five, to schools in rural areas. Approximately 35 teachers from the 25 clusters will be appointed as co-ordinators, but we do not know what type of service they will provide for disadvantaged schools.
I am critical of the Breaking the Cycle initiative. The Minister may laugh, but if she were in Knocknaheeny or Churchfield in Cork, in Connemara or in certain parts of Dublin she would not laugh. It is unacceptable that schools which experience extreme disadvantage in urban and rural areas have been denied an additional teacher or support under the Breaking the Cycle initiative. Some schools have received eight additional teachers while neighbouring schools, with equal degrees of disadvantage, have not even received one. Tremendous inequity has entered the system. While nobody would begrudge the additional teachers to the schools concerned — they deserve all the help they can get — there is no justification for depriving schools, such as St. Mary's in Knocknaheeny or Padre Pio in Churchfield in Cork, of one additional teacher.
I challenge anyone to dispute what I have said. I have received correspondence from schools in Connemara, Donegal and Dublin which should have received assistance, but did not. I have had correspondence from a school in Letterfrack which was included in the Breaking the Cycle initiative and, while that entitles it to grant assistance, it will lose a teacher. We are assisting schools in so-called disadvantaged areas by increasing capitation grants, but they subsequently lose teachers. The loss of a teacher to the school in Letterfrack will be crucial to its ongoing success and development.
In an excellent article in Education and Living dated 5 November, John Carr of the INTO welcomed the Breaking the Cycle initiative, but stated that a comprehensive system of remedial education must be a priority for rural areas. The INTO believes it would take an additional 220 teachers to complete that service and to provide genuine access to remedial education for children, particularly those in disadvantaged circumstances.
Rather than appointing 35 co-ordinators to travel around the country visiting schools in rural areas, resources should be spent on appointing 35 remedial teachers. I would have used this year's demographic dividend to appoint approximately 50 teachers. A general reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio would assist remedial teachers because it would reduce numbers in classrooms and allow greater room for manoeuvre within schools.
Breaking the Cycle was a great initiative for the editorial writers. It had a great story to tell about a wonderful new initiative that would tackle disadvantage head on. However, only 35 urban schools benefited. Hundreds of other schools in similar positions did not get even one teacher. It would have been a more equitable system if the schools selected had received three or four teachers and the remaining teachers were appointed to other schools throughout the country.
When the Estimates are being approved, I inform the Minister of the demand for a proper and comprehensive remedial system of education. We need more remedial teachers urgently to cater for children with special needs. If they are not catered for at an early age we will fail them. A mixed approach would be more beneficial in next year's demographic dividend than the one the Minister adopted last year. She should listen to the social partners and not take unilateral action. She should also heed what is being said by people throughout the country. The Minister has a difficulty with consultation. The last person she will consult is a TD. Labour Deputies may benefit in that regard, but even some of them are frustrated at the lack of progress in this area.
The Minister has a high disregard for the House. She rarely attends Adjournment debates and considers Private Members' motions an undue sufferance. It is interesting to note the number of Deputies who put their names to this motion, particularly those from the western seaboard and other rural areas, and have expressed a desire to contribute to the debate. They are listening to complaints from parents, teachers and children about the lack of a proper service. The day of the cynical press release which states that 85 per cent of our children have access to a remedial service is gone. It is time to deal with the reality.
I commend the motion to the House and urge the Minister to respond positively.
