After 40 years Government educational policy has not delivered equality of opportunity and is failing many young people, writes Brian Fleming
Equality of educational opportunity has been an objective of Government policy for over 40 years now. While we have a much-lauded educational system, the fact of the matter is that it fails many young people.
As the Government White Paper of 1980 states: "The problem of school failure is at its worst in areas characterised by a range of unfavourable social and economic conditions such as poor housing, high rate of adult unemployment and a rate of income below the national average. Few people doubt that many children who grow up in such areas are at a disadvantage.
"The conclusion that special provision would have to be made for these children led to the identification of the principle that quality of educational opportunity implied unequal treatment of children within an educational system."
The issue was subsequently addressed in many reports, most notably the McGuinness report of 2001 which recommends a lower pupil-teacher ratio in poorer areas.
These sort of ideas were supplemented by the work of the Educational Disadvantage Committee in the last few years.
Throughout these years various initiatives have been brought forward by successive ministers for education in an attempt to address these issues. Inevitably, a pattern emerged in all cases and a targeted intervention was offered to those most in need. All the various national bodies concerned with education then pressed for similar resources to be provided throughout the system and inevitably under pressure the Department of Education yielded to some degree. The result has been that rather than targeted interventions, we have spread resources more thinly.
Minister for Education Mary Hanafin's recent policy document Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools: An Action Plan for Educational Inclusion is a very well researched document. It addresses all the main issues including devising a proper system of identification of disadvantage and bringing together all the various initiatives in an integrated package so as to eliminate duplication, and indeed waste. It also highlights the strength of current provision, particularly the level of commitment displayed by staff working in such areas.
However, the plan is somewhat disappointing, particularly in relation to post-primary education. It seems limited in its ambition. The underlying causes of school failure are complex, and the promised additional allocation of €40 million, while more than welcome, will not substantially change the situation. The failure to implement the McGuinness report is particularly regrettable.
For example, the issue of teacher recruitment and retention is to be addressed by way of a sabbatical year for 50 teachers. This will affect very few people and for the money it would cost represents a poor return.
The Educational Disadvantage Committee had suggested an additional allowance for teachers serving such areas but the department have shied away from that. Quite what the difficulty is I don't know because similar allowances are payable to those teaching through the medium of Irish, teaching in Gaeltacht areas and teaching in comprehensive schools.
The Post of Responsibility Scheme is the mechanism by which schools respond to the pastoral and administrative needs of their students and administrative requirements. It will hardly be disputed that these are greater in disadvantaged areas. An amendment to the Post of Responsibility Scheme, allowing for greater numbers of such promotional opportunities in schools serving poorer areas, would have a wider impact compared to a sabbatical where only one member of staff is an immediate beneficiary.
Even the proposed integration of existing schemes into one, while welcome, is still unduly prescriptive. The Department of Education needs to learn to trust schools, and take an approach whereby local solutions are devised and an agreement reached between the school and the department upon which the funding would be based. In that way, we could also ensure that money is spent on the pupils.
Finally, there are no proposals to address a number of other issues. The extension of the school leaving age to 16 means that there are pupils in schools who just want, and need, a one year course after Junior Certificate before they leave. There is no such course available. Those involved with the Leaving Certificate applied course know that its administrative and academic demands are too great for some special-needs pupils. An alternative is needed.
The setting up of the Education Welfare Board, without resources in schools, is unlikely to improve the school attendance situation.
The two-tier nature of our education system is perhaps best exemplified by the question of psychological reports. These are now required to secure resources for specialneeds pupils.
Obviously, middle-class parents are able to secure their entitlements by paying for the report themselves. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to the less privileged.
The Minister and her officials are to be congratulated on what they have produced to date. However, if they want to realise the objective - which we have had now for over 40 years - of equality of educational opportunity, far more radical measures are needed.
She needs to target resources on the basis of need, and the education partners are morally obliged to support her if and when she does this - irrespective of their own particular vested interest.
Brian Fleming is principal of Collinstown Park Community College in Clondalkin, Co Dublin