Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I am happy to second the motion and I commend Deputy Smith on tabling it. This is the first occasion I have been in the Chamber since the appointment of the Minister and I wish him every success in his term of office. I commend the Government for not opposing this motion. As outlined by Deputy Smith, it sends a good signal on the ability of this House to co-operate on education.

I will start where Deputy Smith finished. In the last Dáil, in my capacity as Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and an Innovation, I had the occasion to visit several research centres, including the centre at Trinity College Dublin, across the road in the Minister's constituency. It was an amazing experience. For someone with an allergy to science and anything to do with it, it opened my eyes to the investment the country has made and the ability to make that investment apply to people's daily lives. The equipment in that centre was far superior to many of the world leading companies based in Ireland. I saw the commitment of the researchers and the work they did. One could make the connection between that work and the positive impact on people's daily lives in the months and years ahead. Investment in research and development in our education system is real and it goes far beyond the boundaries of education. That has been typical of the State's investment in education. It has gone beyond the boundaries of education for many decades and generations and through many Governments. That should continue.

I also visited NUIG and Sligo IT to see the physical investment on campuses. Superb management, including people such as Terri Scott, has transformed the presentation of the campuses and their ability to attract private investment. The business innovation centre at Sligo IT is a must see for the Minister. It gives students doing research the chance to commercialise their findings and a chance to remain in the supportive environment of the campus while testing their feet in the commercial waters. We must also use the physical investment to challenge teaching standards and ambitions. I refer in particular to our IT structure. The Croke Park agreement gives the Minister and the education system an ambitious roadmap. After some delay, most unions have signed up to it. Let us take the Croke Park agreement ball and run quickly with it. Our third level education system has often broken barriers for Ireland's economy. The Ballyfermot College of Further Education introduced animation as an Irish industry and challenged those students. It showed that Irish students could be animators and they went on to win Oscars. DCU, UL and the National Institute for Higher Education, NIHE, which I am young enough to remember, provided courses on international relations and were the first colleges to bring trade on to the Irish academic syllabus. It is that sector that must challenge where the jobs and income for Ireland will be in the future. With the investments being made, including the physical and academic investments, and with far greater numbers than heretofore of Irish academics now travelling abroad and coming back with new knowledge, the jobs of the future, which we cannot yet envisage, will come.

I also acknowledge the role played by the College of Surgeons in flying the flag for Ireland abroad, including in Middle East markets. Some 30 or 40 years ago the College of Surgeons was opening doors to markets we now take for granted in terms of so much more than education, including food, medical devices and so on. This shows that education is not boxed but affects our entire economy, country and culture. The benefit of all of this is lost if we cannot get people into or keep them in the system. Deputy Smith referred to educational disadvantage. I see education as the ultimate roadmap out of disadvantage. If we offer young disadvantaged people a proper chance to engage and, more importantly, remain in education we give them a chance to get out of that disadvantaged situation.

We have invested a huge amount of money over many years in various disadvantage programmes. While that investment was big in terms of monetary value, its effectiveness may have been lost owing to the scattered and dispersed nature of how it was managed. The Departments of Education and Skills, Health and Children, through the HSE, Social Protection and local area based partnerships are involved in this area. If we could centralise that investment in one spending centre we could then track outcomes and ensure there is consistency of outcomes and that those taking part in these programmes get the best chances.

I encourage the Minister to publish the DEIS review as soon as possible. For me, DEIS presents serious problems. I fear that it does not fully capture rural disadvantage in particular. The measurements of DEIS are urban focussed and because of this rural disadvantage is losing out. For example, Erris in County Mayo has 21 primary schools pending the Department's review. Some 20 of those schools are designated DEIS schools, the 21st should be so designated but there are issues in the school. These 20 schools feed three secondary schools, two of which are designated DEIS schools while the third is not. Two of the three secondary schools are located on the one campus beside each other, one of which is designated DEIS and the other is not. Therefore, a person from the designated DEIS secondary school is disadvantaged while his or her sibling who attends the non-designated DEIS school is not. When DEIS is removed from a the loss in terms of supports from school books to teaching support is significant.

I note from the 2006 review that rural disadvantage in particular is not tracked. I wonder if in putting disadvantage funding into a school model we are losing sight of the fact that the disadvantage may be arising in the home as opposed to the school the child attends. Should we, in the context of that review, on which I want to engage with the Minister, consider attaching the funding to the student rather than the physical entity that is the school? A disadvantage programme should start in the home. We all know that many students go to school without breakfast, without which they are not able to concentrate at school. A disadvantage programme should continue in the school towards resource teachers, the student, SNAs if needed and school lunches to ensure children receive nutrition. School lunches are funded by the Department of Social Protection.

A disadvantage programme should continue in a post-school situation through homework clubs, which are outstanding and are operated through area based partnerships. The homework clubs are essential because the concept of study and after school attention is often not understood or encouraged. This is where everything done in the classroom is lost. Any programme of disadvantage needs to be consistent and less dispersed and scattered. We should, perhaps, consider how we ensure the disadvantaged person, the student, rather than the physical entity, the school, remains at the heart of the programme.

There are two other issues I wish to deal with before moving on to the issue of rural schools. I plead with the Minister to resolve the conundrum that is ABA education in relation to autistic children. Many Ministers from my party tried to do so when in Government, some enthusiastically, some less so. There is an issue within the Department of Education and Skills in regard to the treatment of ABA education. Many parents with autistic children swear by it. Who knows a child better than a parent? I am aware there are court cases pending in this regard. For the sake of those parents who have autistic children who are responding to ABA education let us address this issue. Surely all of us in this House who have an interest in this can knock heads together for once and for all and get rid of the vested interests around this.

The programme for national recovery provided for a cutback in Traveller education. While I acknowledge this measure was introduced by the last Government I ask that it be reviewed. Traveller education requires many more approaches than used in standard education. I fear that if we pull back from the resource teachers engaged in this area, we will lose many of the gains made. Adopting a common approach for Traveller education will damage what we are trying to do in terms of introducing education as a value. I join with Deputy Smith in expressing serious concern about remarks attributed to the Minister, perhaps out of context, in relation to rural schools.

Rural schools are essential to the fabric of rural Ireland. Earlier today, we were discussing rural post offices. If we allow the school to go we allow the value and identity of the parish to go with it. We allow people who return to education and have pride in a school to go too. In considering this in financial terms, we miss so much more. We miss the advantages that children in a rural school have in terms of their educational attainment and standard. While it might be better for some to be in a bigger school, generally, teachers and support staff who serve rural schools are model teachers in terms of their contributions not alone to the school but to the wider school community. This is an issue that I fear the Minister and I will fall out on unless it is handled properly.

We should all celebrate Irish education. We should celebrate its achievements since the foundation of the State and celebrate what it has done for us on this island and internationally. We should also not be afraid to point out its weaknesses, as Deputy Smith has done. The incoming education committee has an important role to play in terms of identifying priorities rather than trying to tackle everything that is wrong. Let us take chunks out of the problems and turn them into opportunities. If we do so, we will at the end of the Minister's term in office and that of the 31st Dáil, have done the State some service.

See this speech in context