Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)

I am glad to have an opportunity to support the motion that has been moved by my party colleague, Deputy Moynihan. He has cogently and strongly outlined the issues that are arising from last week's inherently unfair budget. The 2012 budget contains a series of measures that will have a serious impact on low-income families and vulnerable households throughout the country. Rural Ireland, in particular, has been penalised in the budget and by broader Government policy. The Fine Gael-Labour Party Government has singled out rural Ireland for cutbacks across a wide number of areas. These cutbacks will have a deep impact on parts of the country that have been already badly affected by the recession, as Deputy Moynihan has said.

Major investment has been made in rural Ireland in the past ten or 15 years. Money has been allocated to develop schools, child care facilities, public housing, public water and sewerage schemes, rural group water schemes, sporting and recreational facilities and other community facilities. There are particular attractions to living and working in rural areas. As we all know, the primary school is a focal point and important centre in each community. Small communities value their local schools. Some towns and villages are fortunate to have the privilege of having a second level school. In the past decade, an important investment has been made to upgrade existing school facilities and to provide new facilities. The Department's various school building programmes have enhanced considerably the school stock throughout the country. Those of us who have visited such schools and participated in the official opening of new facilities are conscious of the pride of the local community in such modern facilities. Local communities have a sense of ownership of their valued educational infrastructure.

As a representative of two rural counties, I have been aware since budget day of the widespread concern in our communities about the future of local primary schools. It is putting it mildly to say there is great concern in rural Ireland about the Government's decision to introduce phased adjustments at primary level to the staff schedules of schools of four teachers or fewer. It is inevitable that this decision will lead to increased pupil-teacher ratio in rural primary schools. The Department's advice to small rural schools to "consider their future" and "assess their options for amalgamation" is a cause of concern to parents with children who attend smaller rural schools. The Government gave a commitment to protect primary education and the overall pupil-teacher ratio at primary level. However, it is obvious that phased changes to the staffing schedules in one-teacher, two-teacher, three-teacher and four-teacher schools - schools with less than 86 pupils - will be seriously affected by the Government's budget decisions. There are 3,200 primary schools in the State. Some 47% of them have five teachers or fewer. Those figures clearly show the huge impact on small rural schools of the Government's decision.

Schools need to know if they face amalgamation or closure. The Minister must clarify the number of schools that will be affected in each county and specify which schools are involved. I note that schools of the minority religions are concerned about the viability of such schools due to the smaller enrolments they have had over the years.

I welcomed the commitment shown by the Minister last June when he stated that in considering any policy changes in respect of smaller schools the Department would consider a number of wider dimensions, and not merely the cost of running such small schools. I ask the Minister to restate that commitment and to outline clearly to us that small rural schools will continue to be a vital part of the educational infrastructure of our country. In recent years there has been new development in child care facilities in our towns, villages and rural parishes. In many instances it is the small rural school in the parish or town which offers the after-school child care facilities that are so important for many families and which benefit the children concerned.

The Minister has yet to publish the value for money review of small schools that was begun by the Department of Education and Skills earlier this year. It is not acceptable that the Minister should proceed with amalgamations before we see the findings of this review. I ask him and the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, to have the review finalised and published as soon as possible.

In June 2011, the Minister, Deputy Quinn, stated that in considering any policy changes in respect of small schools, the Department of Education and Skills would consider wider dimensions than simply the cost of running such schools. At the time my party welcomed that commitment. The Minister stated:

Among the issues that will need to be taken into account are questions such as availability of diversity of provision, ethos of schools, parental choice, language of instruction, travel distances, transport costs and the impact of schools on dispersed rural communities. The review will examine the locations of small schools relative to each other and to other schools of a similar type. It will also examine the costs of running small schools and the educational outcomes associated with small schools.

The position of the Fianna Fáil Party on this review has always been that it should be about increasing the educational return to communities from the schools in question, not about finding ways of rationalising them. We admit there may be areas where shared resources, such as specialist teaching and IT support could make a big difference. There are many such instances of which the Minister of State will be aware. I mentioned, for example, two VECs in my constituency which provide services of technology to some primary schools and voluntary secondary schools. However, my party does not and will not support any programme to rationalise smaller schools. I stated as much during the last Private Members' motion on education in April this year and I reiterate this position today.

In government the Fianna Fáil party dramatically increased teaching and other resources to small schools and doubled the numbers of teachers working in small rural schools. We did this because we see local primary schools as an irreplaceable part of community life. Every Member of this House and the Upper House is well aware of the considerable improvements made to the infrastructure of our smaller schools and to the human resources available in them. A very important beneficiary of this increased support for small schools has been the schools of Protestant denominations outside Dublin, in particular in my area of Cavan-Monaghan.

Earlier this year my party stated we would support the Minister if his intention was to increase the educational gain from spending on these schools. Unfortunately, it is now clear he intends to move ahead and take decisions without taking an overall approach. Again, the Government has singled out disadvantaged schools for significant cuts in teacher numbers this year in another series of callous cuts. Under the plans 428 posts allocated to disadvantaged schools throughout the country will be removed, on a phased basis, beginning next year. The rules on class sizes under the DEIS programme will also be changed under this Fine Gael-Labour Party plan. Class sizes in many disadvantaged schools will be increased to 22 pupils. Today the Taoiseach told the Dáil that his Government has protected pupil-teacher ratios in budget 2012. This is not correct. The Fine Gael-Labour Party budget targets disadvantaged schools for cuts to teacher numbers from next year. This is yet another example of the Government's budget hitting the most vulnerable groups hardest while those on higher salaries escape the bulk of the cutbacks.

Schools in disadvantaged areas face the greatest challenges and can least afford cuts to their staffing levels and services. The cuts announced in last week's budget will result in larger class sizes in most disadvantaged schools and will have a direct impact on the most vulnerable students in our education system. The DEIS programme is the only scheme that targets educational disadvantage in rural Ireland. Now many of these schools are to lose teacher posts. That disadvantaged schools and small rural schools have been singled out in this way is a disgrace. The Government had a series of choices to make in its budget in order to achieve the necessary savings for 2012. Unfortunately, it chose to target vulnerable groups and rural communities for the bulk of the cutbacks instead of asking those who could most afford it to play their part. All Members have spoken to parents whose children have benefited from these schemes and programmes. Not only have they been beneficial for individual pupils but they also aid the wider school community. Many principals and other staff members dread the changes proposed by the Minister and his Department. The children who benefited in the past from the additional teaching support needed that assistance and the pupils in the classroom today need it in their formative years.

School transport is a significant operation which currently supports more than 125,000 pupils and their families on a daily basis. The main criteria for provision of a service are distance from a school and a prescribed minimum number of pupils requiring transport from a distinct locality. As the Opposition spokesperson on education, last year the Minister, Deputy Quinn, railed against the increase in school transport charges. He referred to a line being crossed in regard to the imposition of primary transport costs. Now, however, he proposes to double most of those charges. Should there be school amalgamations and closures school transport will be even more central to the provision of primary education and will create likely additional costs for parents.

The Government's decision to change dramatically the provision for career guidance and counselling will have a significant effect on the majority of second level schools and will impact adversely on smaller second level schools. The Government has decided that from the next school year guidance provision will be managed by schools from within their standard teacher allocation. It has been stated clearly by the relevant interests that this decision will affect up to 1,000 guidance counsellors in 700 second level schools throughout the country. How can the Government claim it is protecting front-line services in education when such a decision is being implemented from the next school year? The reality is there will be a significant loss of teaching posts at second level, with some schools losing two posts. It is clear that the ramifications of this decision are very serious. All of us appreciate that guidance counsellors are a vital link between schools, society and the wider world of work. In these difficult times a reduced guidance service is not what pupils or their families need. Was there ever a more important time to have adequate guidance for young people?

Educationalists have clearly pointed out that the withdrawal of the entitlement of second level schools to ex quota career guidance counsellors will have the same effect as a straight increase in the pupil-teacher ratio. Unfortunately, it will mean that the majority of second level schools will lose a teacher. There will be a further curtailment of subject choice and the running of a transition year and the leaving certificate applied examination may be affected in many schools. That would be a very unfortunate and retrograde step. The priority of everybody in this House is to deal with the very difficult economic situation and to provide jobs for our people. This is a time when young people need career advice and counselling. Only last January, the ESRI dealt in a publication with the concerns of parents in regard to the availability and the adequacy of career guidance. That publication clearly showed the importance that parents attach to such guidance.

Even at third level there is an anti-rural agenda. The Government has taken four decisions that will significantly restrict the ability of young people and the unemployed to continue to third level education. We know of the commitments made four days before the general election by the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, that not alone would they not increase student contribution charges but they would reduce those imposed some weeks earlier. This pledge, like the others, will not be honoured.

Thankfully, there has been a significant improvement in third level participation rates. In 1980, only 20% of all 18 year olds went to third level. By 2009, 65% of all students who completed their leaving certificates went on to third level which now stands as the highest participation level in the EU. Between 1997 and 2010 the number of third level students increased 60% from 100,000 to 159,000. We do not want the Government imposing policies that will restrict access for people from lower income households to third level education.

I commend Deputy Moynihan's motion to the House.

See this speech in context