I move the motion in my name and that of my Fine Gael colleagues. We thought a lot about this motion before bringing it to the House. It is a recognition of the poor state of primary school education. From school buildings to the provision of qualified teachers to the care of disadvantaged people, this Government has failed spectacularly.
The programme for Government drawn up close to six months ago commits the Government to a continued reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio. The Government promised to introduce maximum class guidelines to ensure the average size of classes for children under nine is below the international best practice guideline of 20:1. The reality is very different. Between 10% and 20% of primary school pupils are in classes that meet Government targets. However, the average class size is 29 pupils with up to 35 in some classes. Despite a recent OECD report showing a pupil teacher rate of 21:1, the reality for many children in Ireland is different. The Department of Education and Science's statistics, and those of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, show that 125,000 primary school children are in classes of 30 or more. Some 250,000 children are in classes ranging in size from 20 to 29.
The curriculum has changed immensely over the years and the demands on teachers are increasing. The face of classrooms has changed immeasurably also. Classes have pupils of different ability and different needs, who speak different languages and for whom English is a second language. Never has it been more necessary to reduce class sizes. Children need to be in classes of no more than 20 to maximise their potential. In light of the Government's and Minister's statistics the potential of only between 10% and 20% of children is being maximised. Between 80% and 90% of children are failing to reach their full potential because of the actions of this Government. There is nowhere the Government can hide from that statistic as it is based on the Department's figures.
I am disappointed that the Minister for Education and Science is not in the House but am sure that he will attend at some point in the debate. In his first words in this House following his appointment, the Minister pledged his commitment to tackling educational disadvantage. One of the first cuts made by the same Minister was in the area of disadvantage – needless to say the cuts were not announced in the House as that would be too much to expect. His very words were: "The focus of my tenure as Minister will be on tackling education disadvantage and looking after those who are not very vocal." He then slashed €11 million from planned initiatives to reduce school drop-out rates and to attract students from disadvantaged backgrounds to third level education – that is some commitment.
The education system is failing many students, particularly those who leave school at an early age. Instead of targeting, assisting and encouraging these students to stay within the education system this Government boldly turned its back on them. This Government's ability to cherish all the children of the nation equally is questionable.
The report on the forum on disadvantage highlights clearly the importance of support at an early age to allow these children to benefit from education. Does the Minister understand the reality of educational disadvantage? Children in disadvantaged areas have a one in three chance of under-achievement and early drop-out, leading to a bleak future of poverty, social exclusion and unemployment. They are coming to school cold, hungry, malnourished and without warm clothes and returning home in the same condition. What hope or chance is the Government giving them? It is giving a future the same as the present, without any hope of a way out. The Minister now seems to have decided that third level students, and not his Department, are responsible for these children and their education.
The failure to retain teachers in primary schools in disadvantaged areas is a failure of this Government and it is with it that responsibility rests. It is because this issue has been ignored for so long that it has now come to this sorry pass. The Minister will not get away with passing the responsibility for retaining these teachers onto third level students. His statement that the only way to keep teachers in disadvantaged schools is to pay bonuses, and the only way to raise this money is to re-introduce third level fees, was the most cynical move of this Government to date, not to mention being contrary to the Minister's much lauded notion of ring-fencing for third level funding, if charges are re-introduced. It is this Government which has presided over a spectacular failure to keep teachers in disadvantaged schools and it is its problem, not that of third level students, to sort out.
The commitment of the Government to doing that is questionable in light of last week's budget. Funding for running costs in schools has been cut back in real terms and the Government is capping numbers in the public service. Can the Government guarantee that this area will not be hit? Every Minister seems to have guaranteed that his or her area will not be hit but some area has to be hit. We need to know which areas are involved. I have no faith that this will not interfere with and affect disadvantaged schools.
In disadvantaged and other schools, there are between 30,000 and 40,000 children taught by teachers without primary teaching qualifications. Only half of this shortfall in primary school teachers is made up by qualified secondary teachers. The other 15,000 to 20,000 are taught by unqualified people. School principals must spend their Saturdays and Sundays ringing around the local area to try to get somebody to come into a classroom. They will take almost anybody they can get in their desperation to have somebody in the classroom for Monday morning. It is a significant problem.
All children are entitled to the basic requirement of a fully trained and qualified teacher. I accept that the Minister has made some attempt to increase the number of graduates, but more needs to be done. Giving children an equal chance is not possible without giving them an equal start. The Government is failing to do this. Schools in disadvantaged areas are bearing the brunt of this failure.
The most outrageous failure of this Government, the Department of Education and Science and the Minister is the crisis with regard to school buildings. It is a failure of the current Government and the previous Administration that has been in office since 1997. I would allow the Minister an exemption from responsibility for the appalling state of primary schools up to May of this year had he not been a member of the previous Administration, but he was. Every member of that Administration is collectively responsible for the state of primary schools and not one can shirk that, try as he or she might.
The horror stories are real and cannot be exaggerated. I debated this on the Adjournment of the House last week and the reality is as I pointed out then. It is easy to see the truth behind the newspaper stories when one visits these schools. I can understand that the Minister might be slow to visit the schools because they do not provide quite the same photo opportunity for someone in his position as standing in front of a shining new school funded by a public private partnership. Those shining new schools are few and far between and are not the reality that most of our primary school students experience.
Camross national school in County Laois is one example. It is described as cramped and higgledy-piggledy, with a tiny room serving as a staff room, principal's office, secretary's office, cleaning supply room, cupboard, kitchen, reception and meeting room. One little room does all that. There is no storage space or PE room. When the resource teacher is available to the school, she must travel down the road to use a cottage provided by the local community to teach. Children have to be brought up and down to that building for their time with the resource teacher. The school has had plans completed for a number of years, it received planning permission for work and, in 1998, it was estimated that it would take €800,000 to provide a new school. Nothing has been done since and it will cost the Department of Education and Science a lot more to do the work four years later.
New Ross CBS in Wexford has been trying to get a new school since 1973. The school is on three separate sites and some of the prefabs are 30 years old. At Gaelscoil Sáirséail in Limerick, one building was built in 1763. That is well over 200 years ago and it is quite unbelievable it is still used. The school is located on a split campus with no ventilation or natural light in most rooms, which are all smaller than recommended. There is one square yard of playground for every pupil.
At Charleville national school in Tullamore, the conditions can only be described as disgraceful and disgusting. There is no other way of putting it. I have visited there on numerous occasions, announcements have been made now and then but the school is still in the same condition. It is horrible to have to visit it let alone to attend as a pupil or a teacher, day after day, with out hope of amendment or provision of facilities. One could give examples from any county or constituency. Six months ago these schools thought they would finally see the promised land and that they would be saved from such deplorable conditions with the help of Government party candidates. Local newspapers and radio were filled with good news press releases. They were told the cheques were in the post and that they should not fear because their school was on the list. That turned out to be a work of fiction which will probably make the Christmas best-sellers list and which we, in this House, have been reading in recent months.
I know the Minister will tell me that Government expenditure in 2003 will be €172.6 million and that 120 major capital projects in the primary sector have recently been completed or are under construction. How recently were they completed? When will the projects under construction be completed? The Minister will deny that the schools on the list were due to start construction and, therefore, they were not included in the 2002 construction programme. However, he must face the fact that that is not the impression the Government gave six months ago.
I welcome the plans to prioritise the schools building programme. We, in Fine Gael, said that should be done a long time ago. However, that is only part of the problem. Another part of the problem is the provision of funding. If the Minister prioritises this area, as he says he will in January, where will the schools be which are currently on the list? They do not know where they are on the list at present, but they want to know if they will be further down the list after prioritisation.
I tabled 134 parliamentary questions to the Minister last week as a result of contacts I had received and research I had done in the area. The Minister's response was a disgrace. Every Member in the House is entitled to answers to parliamentary questions, but the answers I received to those questions were unacceptable. The Minister said I should consult the Department's website. I did that before I tabled the questions, but it did not provide any information. It did not tell me anything I did not know already. I asked the Minister when the work would commence, when he expected it to be completed and the length of delays due to the cut in the Estimates. He told me he would announce his expenditure proposals for primary school buildings in the new year and that it was not possible at this point to indicate when architectural planning or construction will commence. There are seven stages in the architectural planning process. I do not accept it is not possible to tell us where each school is on the list. They must be at some point in the architectural planning process. The Minister only needs to look at the file and give us the basic information. The schools and we, as Members of this House, are entitled to that information. I will continue to table those questions every week, which will keep someone employed on a full-time basis, because I am entitled to the answers.
The Minister said that the primary responsibility for health and safety in schools rests with the boards of management. That may be the case, but it is unfair to blame schools and boards of management for the state of schools. The majority of them are looking after schools to the best of their ability with the resources they have. However, they cannot cope with the work which must be done, particularly to old schools, with the resources they receive. I am sure I will be provided with a list of figures from 1997 to 2002, as is the usual response. However, it is time the Minister accepted that schools do not want a history lesson. They want to know where they stand in 2002 and when the work will commence. It is time the Minister and the Government realised their responsibilities and commitment to these schools. They should do their job and ensure that schools are improved.