Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 2000

Vol. 518 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Dublin Primary School.

Mr. McDowell: This first came to my attention when I was canvassing during the local elections last year when a constituent mentioned that the reception year in St. Joseph's co-educational national school in East Wall had been effectively terminated or, at the very least, that instructions had been received from the Department of Education and Science that the reception year should be terminated.

I had not previously heard of a reception year or a facility to introduce a reception year in national schools. I took the trouble to investigate it further and I was both interested and excited by what I found. Since roughly 1984 this relatively small co-educational primary school in East Wall has been operating in effect a three-year infant cycle. It receives children who in the first year go through what one might call pre-learning. They do not use text books but they are facilitated in learning the use of language, in learning to write and in learning what is called pre-mathematics which is essentially basic numeracy. The year is run in the most informal way possible to foster links between the parents and the school and the teachers involved. It is not pre-school in the sense that it is done within the confines and within the structure of the school, and it is not a crèche, for the same reason. It has to be said that this is what we would normally refer to as a disadvantaged area where pre-school facilities and crèches which might be available in better off areas are simply not available. The reception year was clearly meeting a need.

Since then the facility being provided has been assessed, most recently some ten years ago by the centre in Drumcondra who concluded that the senior infants in the school had benefited from and were continuing to benefit from the fact that there was a reception year in place. Given that it is some 15 years since the year was instituted it is now possible to say, with some empirical evidence, that pupils have benefited in their later education from having been able to avail of the reception year.

When I became aware of this I tabled a question to the Minister for Education and Science to which I received a two-sided response. On the one hand I was told the curriculum was intended to be flexible, child-centred and capable of being adapted to cater for the individual needs of pupils. On the other hand I was told that a three-year cycle was utterly unacceptable because it did not conform to the rules.

As somebody who does not claim any great expertise in matters of education, it seems to me that there must be huge benefits in allowing certain flexibility to individual schools in areas of need which have pupils with particular needs, to adapt the curriculum. If they can do that by having an additional reception year or, for that matter, a mid-infant cycle year, that is altogether a good thing. Far from closing down or instructing a school that it must close down the reception year, we should compliment schools which have taken an initiative that can be clearly shown to have had positive results for the children concerned. That, unfortunately, is not what is happening. What we have here is essentially a bureaucratic response. What we have is, regrettably, a Civil Service and civil servants simply saying that this does not conform to the rules and must, therefore, be terminated because it might give the wrong idea to other people.

The evidence suggests that the reception year is a good idea. If the Minister doubts that I invite him to make a further evaluation of the reception year, which I am sure the school would welcome, and take a decision based on that. From what little I know of it, far from closing it down we should be encouraging it.

Mr. O'Dea:

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Deputy on the staffing position in St. Joseph's co-ed primary school and the retention of the three year infant cycle. I realise that the issue of the reception year, not just in this school but generally, is of concern to a number of Deputies.

The Deputy is no doubt aware that the staffing of a primary school is determined by reference to the enrolment of the school on 30 September the previous year. The enrolment of St. Joseph's co-ed primary school on 30 September 1998 was 250 pupils. The enrolment on 30 September 1999 decreased to 234 pupils. The school has a staffing of principal, nine mainstream class teachers, one remedial teacher, a shared home school liaison teacher and a special disadvantaged concessionary post in the current school year.

I take this opportunity to outline the position with regard to the reception year. I understand St. Joseph's has operated a reception year in the school for a number of years. The primary curriculum is designed as an eight year course and there is no official programme for a reception class within that curriculum. The policy of the Department of Education and Science is, and has been, that children who are over four years of age should be enrolled at the beginning of the school year and commence in junior infants. I am aware that there is a tradition in many schools whereby pupils are enrolled for a number of days prior to the summer vacation to facilitate them in adjusting to school life.

After spending a year in junior infants, pupils should progress to senior infants and spend two years overall in the infant cycle. As a general rule, pupils should progress from one standard to a higher standard at the end of each year. I understand that in St. Joseph's children are routinely enrolled from 1 September onwards for a number of months in a reception class and are promoted to junior infants from 1 September of the following year and spend a further two years in the infant cycle.

The phasing out of the reception year was discussed by personnel of the Department of Education and Science with the staff of the school and the chairperson during the 1998-99 school year. The board of management was subsequently advised by letter, in June 1999, that a two year infant cycle should be re-established for the 1999-2000 school year. I would also point out to the Deputy that St. Joseph's is not the only school where a reception year or a three year infant cycle is being phased out. I can think of one or two in my own constituency. It is the policy of the Department of Education and Science when it becomes aware of the existence of a reception year or three year cycle to inform the school to cease the practice.

As the Deputy may be aware, the Government announced its intention to deliver a £194 million three year multi-sectoral programme addressing educational disadvantage. The allocation for the primary sector over the period of this programme will be in excess of £25 million and will target children and young people who are most at risk of not reaching their potential in the education system. A comprehensive survey of all primary schools will be carried out on the Minister's behalf by the Educational Research Centre, Drumcondra, during the current school term. The purpose of the survey will be to identify the level of concentration in each school of children at risk of educational disadvantage. The results will be used to determine the tiers of support that will be provided in September 2000 for the schools with above average concentrations of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Consequently, it is of vital importance that all schools, including St. Joseph's, should complete the questionnaire that they will receive and return it within the stipulated time. The level of resources allocated under the new three year programme will reflect the numbers of pupils in each school with "at risk" characteristics.

Mr. McDowell:

The Minister did not give any reasons for this.