I am grateful for the opportunity given to me to raise this matter because while it may appear unimportant and trivial in the context of the normal business of one of the Houses of the Legislature, it is a matter of considerable importance to the group of citizens concerned.
There is a small rural national school called Loughill national school, County Longford, under imminent threat of closure. This school is situated about five or six miles from Longford town, three miles from the village of Ardagh, and the proposal is to close it and amalgamate its pupils and staff with a new national school being built in the village of Ardagh. Loughill national school at the moment has a student population of approximately 40 and there are two teachers teaching in the school. The building is not excessively old by the standard of many national schools throughout the country and there are no serious complaints from the teachers or parents with regard to the standard of accommodation. There is adequate playing space.
As I understand it, the policy in the Department as devised by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Barry, is that schools of this type, small rural schools where amalgamations are proposed, are not to be closed unless the parents concerned consent. I may say that the parents in this case have not consented and, so far as I am aware, even worse, their consent was not sought. The proposals to close the school were made, in effect, over the heads of those most directly concerned, the parents of the children.
The reasons for changing—up to that time the policy was to close these schools if certain bureaucratic criteria were satisfied irrespective of the local needs or wishes—this rather inhumane policy by Deputy Barry was to give the people concerned a say in the education of their own children and where they will be educated. He was also conscious of the fact that the survival of many rural communities as an integrated, solid community, can depend very largely on the local national school representing a focal point in community life. He felt that that was a consideration that should be taken into account and which should count in making a decision, a consideration to help determine a decision against closing. He was also conscious of the fact that, educationally, there is a point of view that children in a small school, notwithstanding the mix in classes, can benefit to a greater extent than children in a larger school. There is more immediate contact between children and teacher; there is more immediate contact between teacher and parent. In a larger school, with the unavoidable increase in anonymity, these valuable contacts can be blunted, so that, educationally speaking, there are many advantages in the small school.
Again too, there is a school of thought that the bussing of children can have undesirable social effects with regard to lack of control and can bring with it problems of indiscipline. In addition there is the physical hardship on children, some of them, depending on the route of the bus and the distances concerned, having to leave their homes very early and return home that bit later by reason of the bus journey to the amalgamated larger school. There is also the expense on the State of increasing school transport services to take account of the amalgamation of schools. We have seen that that particular expense is beginning to bite severely into the Exchequer because rather harsh changes in it have been announced in today's papers. Children of tender years who, up to now have been carried, are going to have to walk.
It is not clear from the newspaper report whether these new regulations will apply to amalgamated schools or whether they will only apply to existing services. Nevertheless, the very fact that these changes have had to be made, severe and rather cruel changes, indicate the financial pressure that the school bus service is putting on the Exchequer. That pressure is increased every time a school is closed and amalgamated.
The reasons for keeping open a small rural school are significant; they are educational, cultural and social. In the case of the school of which I am speaking, all those reasons are present. The school is an ideal size, 40 pupils and two teachers. It has been in existence and gave an excellent service to that community for a great many years. The present teaching staff and present educational arrangements have the total confidence of the parents. They are satisfied, from monitoring the progress of their children at the school, of seeing the progress of pupils who went through that school, that the education they are getting there is up to standard. They are the best people to judge in that regard. Teachers are happy to continue in that school. They find the number of pupils easily managed; they find the facilities up to the standards they require and the mix of classes is something to which they have adjusted, something which has been part and parcel of the national school system for generations. They do not find that a handicap.
The facilities in the school—with the possible exception of bringing the toilets nearer to the main building—are excellent and there is no large-scale expenditure required on the school. For any expenditure that is required, the parents are quite prepared to put their hands in their pockets and meet their appropriate share.
The school to which the pupils are proposed to be taken in Ardagh is a new school. I am informed that it was designed in 1965 to cater for about 100 children. Delays of one kind or another, inevitable in the building of schools, apparently intervened and the school is only now about to be completed. It consists, I understand, of four rooms and a playroom. The intention was that, when opened, there would be four classes of about 25 in each class and a playroom for ex-curricular activities. However, the population in the area, happily, has increased and, when the children from Loughill school which I am asking the Minister to keep open, are transferred to Ardagh, there will then be 140 children in that school and the initial design requirement will be exceeded. I am informed also that it will be necessary to use the playroom as a classroom so that there then will be five classes instead of the four originally planned. The amenities in the school will be thereby diminished by the playroom not being available for the purpose for which it was designed. It will have to be a classroom to cater for the extra number of children. I am informed that the play area is limited in proportion to the number of pupils for this school. This school is sited on a piece of ground donated by a local convent and the amount of ground, while the generosity of the nuns in donating it cannot be faulted, is the minimum that could be done with. Unfortunately, for 140 pupils this is going to be too small and the amenities for the children will thereby be diminished.
These children will have to be bussed and there will have to be special buses provided at expense to the State and against the wishes of the parents. If the new regulations concerning school transport apply to these children, the position is that they will be taken out of their present school, which is within easy walking distance for the vast majority of them, and directed into a new school several miles away for many of them. The hardship of that long walk is going to be imposed on them.
I cannot see any reason for proceeding with this proposed amalgamation. The first thing the Minister might do with regard to this school would be to obtain the views of the parents. I think, in the context of modern times, the individual is so often overlooked. The scheme is there and it has to be implemented. We forget about the people concerned. If this amalgamation were to proceed, it would be a classic example of the State ignoring the rights of individual citizens for the sake of a tidy scheme. I appeal to the Minister, in this age of uniformity, when the herd is all, to go back to the individual people here. The rights of the individual are very often trampled on in a rush to try to have a uniform scheme that fits the pattern of the trade union, that fits the pattern of the party and that fits the pattern of this particular group in society. The individual is forgotten, and his rights are overlooked. If the Minister proceeds with this amalgamation, without consulting the parents, he will be guilty of ignoring the wishes and rights of a substantial body of respectable citizens. In the interest of democracy the parents should be consulted. The Minister will get the view of the parents that that school satisfies them educationally, satisfies them culturally and it is a very important factor socially in the community life of their particular area. There would be a gap in their lives if this school was closed. It is only a comparatively short distance away but the Minister is aware of how closely knit rural communities can be. He would agree with me that to bring the children to another school is tantamount to bringing them to, not a foreign country, but certainly a strange environment.
When those children come into the other school, they will be looked on as the outsiders from the amalgamated school down the road. That will not be helpful to the children. They will also be transported from the intimate atmosphere of a small two-teacher school into a bigger school where they will only be numbers. Their individuality will be diminished and they will become anonymous numbers in that new school. All the arguments I submit to the Minister, are in favour of keeping open this school. I appeal to the Minister to maintain the policy introduced by his predecessor of not closing any of these schools unless the agreement of the parents concerned is given.
