The Business Committee has agreed to allow two and a half hours for this debate, the Member proposing the motion having 15 minutes to propose, with 15 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have a maximum of 10 minutes.

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the threat to rural schools in Northern Ireland; calls upon the Government to recognise the vital role that such schools play in the community; and urges the Government to put in place a strategy, where possible, to protect the viability of these schools.

The motion is intended to place on record the high value that Members place on rural schools and the value they have both for the communities they serve and for the children who attend them. Members want the Govern-ment to recognise their worth and protect their viability. Instead of allowing schools to run down, the Govern-ment should be trying to sustain and maintain them.

Yesterday I attended the funeral of a man who, at 64 years of age, had succumbed to cancer. The archdeacon who gave the address at the service of thanksgiving for his life, reminded us that that good man had attended Moybane Primary School. Moybane is a townland near Letterbreen in west Fermanagh. I mention it because there was a time, some 60 years ago, when one would encounter a small primary school in the country at every couple of miles or so. Times change, and the situation is now almost reversed. Few rural schools remain, and those in my own constituency are under constant threat of closure. I do not suggest that every townland needs a school; only that those who live in rural communities should not be forced to have their young children transported long distances to primary school.

When I was four years old, I travelled daily the one mile from my home near Rosslea to Aghadrumsee Primary School, where I had a most enjoyable time. Unfortunately, after the IRA tried to murder my father, I was moved, at the age of eight, to Lisnaskea Primary School, as the family was forced, for its own safety, to move out of its home. Newly arrived from little Aghadrumsee, Lisnaskea Primary School seemed huge to me. It was virtually a town school, yet now, with only 100 pupils, it would barely survive the cull. The Bain Report has set a new minimum enrolment for a functioning rural school.

Before passing on to other matters, I pay tribute to all the teachers who teach, or have taught, in rural schools. They say that one never forgets teachers. I have fond memories of most, if not all, of my teachers, but I can say that unreservedly of all my teachers at primary school. I hope that they can say the same of me, but one can never be sure about that.

The Bain Report envisages that the minimum enrolment for rural primary schools should be 105. It would be hard in any rural constituency — but particularly in my own — to find a rural school with such an enrolment. However, the Minister with responsibility for education, Maria Eagle, has said that:

“… this is not an agenda to close small schools.”

I say to the Minister that, if it looks like an agenda for closing small schools, and it results in the closing of small schools, it is an agenda for closing small schools. When my colleagues and I have visited the Department of Education on behalf of small schools, it is always stressed that the Department puts children at the heart of all of its decisions. If that is so, why does the Department not listen to the voice of parents whose children are at small schools? Surely parents want what is best for their children? I know that I do.

My two eldest children attend a small primary school in Brookeborough, at primary levels one and three. I would not have them attend any other. Each teacher at that school knows all the children, and all the children know each other. There is a positive atmosphere of goodwill and, because I see the benefits at first hand, I will continue to fight for small rural schools. Pupils are content; there is no bullying; and worries and problems are quickly identified and dealt with. That is also true of small secondary schools. Last year, the former Duke of Westminster High School, now Devenish College at Kesh, was closed, and the children were bused from north Fermanagh to Enniskillen. When the parents were fighting closure, they were concerned about the loss of individual attention to pupils that they had come to expect at the school at Kesh; large class sizes; and the impact that it would have on children who were perhaps not as quick as their peers.

They were also very worried about the long journey — over 20 miles — that some of their children now have to make on an overcrowded bus to Enniskillen. Apart from the obvious worries about safety on the roads, they told me about the incidents of bullying that take place on buses and around the bus stops. Those parents were told that it would all be worthwhile as a new Devenish College was being built in Enniskillen. Needless to say, we are still waiting for that new school to be built, and, with the moratorium on building after the Bain Report, we will be waiting for quite some time.

I will be watching the costs of transporting those children to Enniskillen from Kesh and beyond. Due to the rural nature of the Western Education and Library Board area, transport costs take a huge part of the budget. Surely, with more thought, some of the transport budget could be put to better use in maintaining those schools under threat of closure.

No one wishes to retain schools that are falling apart — no matter what their size. However, policy-makers and administrators appear to have ignored evidence that refutes many of the claims that small schools are deficient and instead highlights the positive learning environments created in those schools.

One argument often put against small schools is that they limit children’s learning experiences. However, education needs to serve the requirements of the individual, and if parents and children choose a small school — for whatever reason — then why should the Government interfere with that choice?

Mr Mervyn Benford, a spokesperson for the National Association for Small Schools (NASS) in England, pointed out that small schools in England, with a smaller intake than has been proposed by the Bain Report, are getting the best results. He said:

“there is enormous long-term significance in the worth of keeping early education close to home and enriched by access to the local neighbourhood.”

That certainly confirms what I have long thought. As long as there are good-quality schools — big or small — serving the community, and children to attend them,  then surely it is worthwhile.

It is a truism that many rural communities in this country have suffered long and hard in the past 40 years. During those tough times, it was often the small rural school that provided continuity of normality — a happy, relaxed place for children who may have been living in a climate of fear. For some families, including my own, terrorism led to an enforced exit from the home, school and community. There is no doubt that the IRA’s ethnic cleansing campaign along the border added to the fall in the number of children attending rural schools. My colleague Lord Morrow and I know all about Minterburn Primary School near Caledon, which has had to deal with such events and is now under severe threat of closure. The chairperson of the board of governors told us that the school had been a safe haven for children throughout the Troubles, and now they felt that the Government were dumping them.

If the Government are going to look at education merely in terms of numbers, then they are missing out on all of the added value that rural schools provide for our children. The extra resources required to run small schools are a legitimate investment in rural communities, which otherwise benefit little from Government expenditure.

Statutory guidance for school adjudicators in one part of England says that the presumption should be against the closure of rural primary schools. However, it does not rule out school closures if a strong case can be made. That would be a good starting point for the Department of Education: the presumption should be for, not against, rural schools. However, numbers have a part to play in that decision, and in some cases it becomes very stark. That is why I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment. The motion is about the viability of schools, and I want to see the Government putting in place a strategy to make existing rural schools viable.

As far as my party is concerned, Government should move away from the policy of setting up schools in some sectors with as little as 12 pupils. Those new schools have an impact on the existing rural schools, be they controlled or maintained — as happened very recently in Fivemiletown — and they remain a threat to the viability of those existing rural schools.

Another small school in my constituency — at Carntall, near Clogher — is a fine example of what a good rural primary school should be. The only problem is that it is full to capacity.

Last year, that school had to turn away a number of children because the Southern Education and Library Board would not allow it to admit any more. It is completely bizarre that, while that small rural school is bucking the trend and increasing numbers, the pen-pushers in the Department of Education have decided on an arbitrary number of pupils that the school can take, and that is that. One size does not fit all. I plead with the Department to consider flexibility in the way that it handles all schools. The Department needs to recognise that small can be beautiful.

The local rural school is much more than bricks and mortar; it can have many functions, if its potential is used to the full. In many areas, the school is the heart of the community and can act as a focal point for the development and attractiveness of an area as it attempts to become self-sustaining. It has long been recognised that school buildings represent a potential community resource. It is absurd that they are closed throughout the summer months and, indeed, most evenings.

The Government are withdrawing services from rural areas at will. The debates in this House over the past months have reflected that with regard to post offices, police stations, libraries, acute health provision, rural planning or education. Frankly, rural proofing has become a complete joke.

No doubt there are those in the House who will say that, if a fully functioning Executive were up and running, it all would be different. I have two answers to that. First, I am not naive enough to think that, if an Executive were up and running in the morning, there would not be tough choices to be made — of course there would. However, I like to think that there would be an acknowledgement of the individual needs of Northern Ireland as a country. That is what this motion seeks, and it is why my party is devolutionist.

Secondly, once those who have been wedded to the policy of an Armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other finally put aside their violent ways for good, by word and deed, and support the police, the courts and the rule of law, we will be able to get on with securing our children’s futures. What Sinn Féin says and, more importantly, does over the coming months can open the door to devolution. That is not up to anyone on this side of the House; we have already signed on in word and deed. Get on with it, so that we can get on with saving rural schools.

I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out “where possible” and insert:

“based on quality of educational provision rather than pupil numbers”.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tá áthas orm an leasú don rún a mholadh. I commend the Members opposite for bringing the motion to the House. The amendment seeks to draw attention to the need for the provision of quality education, rather than a simple numbers game, to be behind any Government strategy to protect the viability of rural schools. As Mrs Foster said, greater numbers do not necessarily mean better education. Many smaller schools provide a first-class education for their pupils.

We have already debated the threatened closure of post offices, both urban and rural, and now we must turn our attention to rural schools, which are already threatened by PPS 14, as I have said before. The Bain Report has raised anxieties about the future of small rural schools and, indeed, some urban schools. It states that a third of schools — a total of 440 — do not have the minimum number of pupils that are required in order to be viable in its terms. People fear that, when the Department of Education gets round to publishing its sustainable schools policy, it will use the recommendations of the Bain Report to cut a swathe through the smaller schools, and to cut the heart out of many communities. They fear that Bain has broken the ice for the Department to act, if not axe.

Of all of the civic institutions in the countryside, the school serves the youngest constituency. The capacity to maintain a school is a continuing indicator of a community’s future well-being.

For many rural areas, the school is not only the hub of the community, but it contributes to a community’s sense of survival. The rural school is a unique feature of country life and an integral part of a local community. Schools in rural communities play many roles; they are part of communities’ shared histories and traditions and are hubs for many community activities.

The report recommends that the minimum enrolment for primary schools in rural areas should be 105 pupils; the current minimum is 60 pupils. That quota is to be applied regardless of the type of education that a school provides to its local community. It is a game of numbers rather than an educational assessment.

Raising the numerical threshold could sound the death knell for many schools, which, in addition to providing basic education, serve as social and cultural centres, as I said. They are places for sport, amateur drama, music and other civic activities. Local schools are essential to the survival of our rural communities. Quite often, schools carry the name of the community and serve as symbols of community autonomy, vitality and identity.

Schools do not only meet a community’s educational needs; they are often a source of employment for village residents, from teachers to cleaners, dinner ladies to caretakers. The local school is a valuable source of employment in many areas where jobs are usually extremely scarce.

If the Bain proposals become part of the sustainable schools policy, teachers’ unions estimate that between 1,200 and 1,900 teaching jobs will no longer be needed. Sir George Bain has not said what lies in store for those teachers. Will they be thrown on the scrap heap? Will they be redeployed to reduce pupil-teacher ratios? Will they be employed to improve special-needs provisions? Will they be employed to implement the Curran Report in order to allow teachers preparation, planning and assessment time? Will they be employed to allow school principals to carry out onerous administrative duties? We do not know the answers to those questions, and we need to find out.

The local school is a place where generations come together and where community identity and lifelong friendships are forged. A school is part of the history of a local area and part of the personal history of each pupil who receives his or her education there, whether at primary or secondary level. To close a country school is to destroy an institution that holds a rural community together; it is to deal a body blow to communities in the smallest rural areas, which have the least resources, and it damages the social and economic well-being of a community.

Sir George Bain has offered several options that may help to maintain local provision. I expect any Government strategy to help small schools. Further-more, I expect that any future strategy will revolve around those options, which include confederation, federation, co-location, shared campuses and extended schools. The Bain Report also provides a set of indicators against which each of those options could be assessed locally.

Does the Member accept that, given the recent rumours of the Catholic Church organising against the review of public administration, the idea of confederation and co-operation among schools becomes more difficult if the Church, through the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), is seeking to keep its iron grip on schools in the maintained sector?

It is my understanding that CCMS is quite prepared to engage in those arrangements in the future.

If we are to protect our rural schools, the Department of Education must formulate the suggested arrangements into a coherent and effective strategy, with much greater available detail on the implications of each model. The key element in the implementation of any forthcoming strategy must be full consultation with all community interests, including local people, parents and the trades unions of teachers and other staff. Solutions must be arrived at locally, not imposed from on high or from outside. I support the amendment.

I support the motion, and I compliment its sponsors for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. Although I am sympathetic to the motion, I am disappointed in its tone. Something more robust than “noting” seems appropriate in the circumstances. Of course, noting is about all that Members can do because of the current status of this House. However, the noting of a threat does not convey how serious that threat really is. One can note a report, but rather than limply note the threat to rural schools, I believe that, given the opportunity, Members would recoil from it, recognise the seriousness of it and, put bluntly, would reject it outright.

Another part of the motion:

“urges the Government to put in place a strategy, where possible”.

“Where possible”? Surely if a new strategy were put in place, it would by necessity be based on coherent and sustainable policies and therefore entirely possible to implement. In that respect, I recognise the intention behind the amendment, but the cull of rural schools stems from the strategy that is currently in operation. That is the problem.

In the light of the Government’s determination, I wonder how effective the amendment would be in removing the threat that rural schools face. Rural schools are suffering from years of ineffective and incompetent ministerial direction. The Department of Education has stumbled along from one crisis to another without a sustainable schools policy, and rural schools have been bounced into instability caused by the threat of closure. That is behind the chaos in education today.

The plight facing rural schools — and there are none that can be complacent — is not a flight of fancy. The threat to their future existence is real and faces many of them now. We debate this matter under the cloud of moves, by way of a strategy that is already in place, to close more than 50% of our rural schools within the next five years. That will result in the dismantling of not only our rural education provision, but rural communities. That will be the inherent result of the current strategy, which is unemotional, mercenary, driven by money and part of a wider social agenda.

There is, of course, a financial argument for closures, but that case might be better appreciated if it were backed up with proper audited costs, and if previous financial assessments were not replete with poor accountancy reports, mismanagement of money — some of which was not even printed, but it still seemed to go astray — and paper trails that were laid to cause confusion. If that happened, I am sure that the resulting valid costs could be extrapolated to secure the future of more rural schools that the Department of Education is assessing for closure.

In my constituency of Strangford, rural schools are reeling under the pressure of recent correspondence from the South Eastern Education and Library Board. There has been word from the top down telling many of them that their future school days are numbered. News travels fast in rural communities, and, in too many cases, the threats issued are seen as virtual notices of closures.

When parents and teachers talk of a departmental strategy, they view it as a strategy driven against their school and their local community environment. These rural folks are not foolish. They can read into the wider agenda an intention to wipe out local identities by forcing people into larger, less attractive, newly created, wider social settlements.

This issue involves our future stakeholders — young families and young children, primary 1 to primary 7 schoolchildren caught up in the chicanery of manipulative strategies and falling foul of the creative accountancy behind optimum number crunching. That simply cannot continue. Without intervention, and our objection to the lasting damage that this will cause to local communities and their environment, it would appear that nothing will be done to reverse the situation.

In the name of preserving rural communities and their schools, the Transitional Assembly deserves to be heard, as a representative collective advising the direct rulers of the disastrous ramifications that will follow in the wake of their current strategy. Pending the outcome of a satisfactory election, it is crucial that the significance of the motion is not lost on an incoming devolved Minister of Education. Today we call for the viability of rural schools to be protected, and a new devolved Minister cannot be found wanting in addressing this important issue.

However, when the Department of Education makes presentations to any Minister, it will — surprise, surprise — run behind the cover of the recent Bain Report. The timing of the publication of the report is a huge coincidence. Madam Speaker, when might we expect to debate the Bain Report fully? I would welcome that opportunity, and most Members of this place share concerns about further critical developments in education. This is an appropriate time for such a debate, given that mandates could soon be sought and that education is a priority for the public.

I look forward to reading the party manifestos on rural schools. I look forward to seeing that what is said in the House today — I have yet to hear it — may, in fact, find its way into print in those party manifestos. I look forward to one party in particular addressing the issue of school closures; it is blessed with having presented our communities with the only devolved Education Minister in recent times. How will that party explain what its Minister did in his term in office to bring about this situation? How, employing its new charm offensive that means it is sweetness and light to all people, will it put that down in its manifesto? How will it explain to the children who are suffering from the consequences —

Will the Member give way?

No, I will not give way. Sit down.

He is sitting down.

Order.

When we debate your motion tomorrow, it will be interesting to hear how you explain that situation.

Mr McNarry, please speak through the Chair.

I do not wish to detract from the importance of the motion; I have complimented and congratulated those who tabled it. That is why it will be important to debate the Bain Report. However, that is not to dilute the importance of today’s motion, which I endorse fully.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comahairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin agus i bhfabhar an leasaithe don rún chomh maith.

At the outset, I declare an interest: I am a governor of St Patricks Primary School, Garvallagh — which, as you know, is near Seskanore — and of St Patricks Primary School, Eskra, which is this side of Fintona.

I do know that.

The motion refers to a threat to rural schools — because there is a threat to rural schools — from the Bain Report and many reports that preceded it. The terms of reference of the Bain Report were to examine the funding, strategic planning and organisation of the schools estate while taking into account curriculum changes and demographic trends. Not to be unduly repetitive, the figure of 105 pupils as the minimum enrolment quota in new rural primary schools jumps out at us, as does the recommendation of 140 pupils as the minimum in urban areas. I do not think that a distinction has been made between rural and urban schools in the discussion about the post-primary minimum enrolment figure of 500. Those figures will be applied if schools are to be deemed viable in future. The Bain Report recommends that all provisions be reviewed if enrolment falls below viable levels in existing schools.

In many ways, rural schools have always been under threat. A report that the Rural Community Network commissioned referred to the tunnel vision of the Department of Education, suggesting that it historically saw the typical primary school as being in an urban area and having a relatively large enrolment. In a way, policy-makers have always worked on the assumption that small schools may need to be rationalised into larger units. There is a presumption against the existence of small rural schools, and policy-makers have always sought to list the supposed disadvantages and place the onus on rural school communities to demonstrate that it is necessary to retain small schools.

Will the Member give way?

I am happy to do so.

I thank the Member for his generosity.

Does the Member agree that he is talking about a policy of the former Minister of Education, who came from his own party?

I am delighted with Tom’s intervention. I shall deal later with the four commitments that Martin McGuinness made to rural communities when he was the Minister of Education. Sinn Féin would be happy to take that Ministry again, should the opportunity present itself. We would be happy to accept responsibility for the Department of Education instead of criticising it and talking about it. Sinn Féin is happy to take responsibility, not just to criticise, as Maurice Morrow knows.

That is Lord Morrow to you. [Laughter.]

Order. Please continue, Mr McElduff.

Thank you. “Maurice” will do rightly for me, Madam Speaker.

Other presumptions have been made. For example, it has been presumed that having one teacher for each age group and a non-teaching principal is the only proper approach to running a school.

Other Members have stated the value of rural schools. Some time ago, I was conscious of the value of a particular rural school in west Tyrone. I asked Dr Eddie Rooney of the Department of Education whether he had visited a school like that recently. He said that he had not.

Thankfully, he took up the invitation to visit that school. I thought it would be useful to try to impress upon senior departmental officials the value of rural schools, and, on that occasion, the rural school in question demonstrated that value. I am grateful to Dr Rooney for taking up that invitation.

There must be a greater appreciation of the serious implications of school closures for children and for the wider community. Last week, Derek Hussey and Francie Brolly in particular detailed anti-rural bias and the effect that the closure of a post office can have on a rural community. Likewise, a school is not merely a building; it is very much at the heart of the rural community.

I now refer to my esteemed friend and colleague, Martin McGuinness, who offered rural communities four commitments when he held the education portfolio. In my judgement, and in the judgement of the wider population, he did an extremely good job as Minister for Education. In an article published in ‘Rural Network News’ in 2001, Martin McGuinness offered rural communities the following four commitments:

“First, I will be flexible in dealing with this issue and I will not impose rigid or inappropriate models of provision. Second, I will look at every individual case on its own merits and I will listen to all the views expressed. Third, I will encourage and support creative solutions”

— and solutions are what we are about here –

“to the educational needs of rural communities, including options such as clustering and federation. And fourth, I will not approve any proposals for closure of schools unless I am completely satisfied that there has been full and open consultation with local communities and that every effort has been made to address their concerns.”

I commend Martin McGuinness on his very enlightened approach. For the benefit of David McNarry’s knowledge base, when the party’s manifesto is published, as it will be soon, it will be in two languages — Irish and English — and it will repeat such solid commitments to rural communities.

We are looking for creative solutions: hopefully, we will start off with the will, and then together we can devise a mechanism. Rural schools are already under pressure; consider the cuts in front-line services, the centralised catering facilities, the lack of funding allocation and the recent end of concessionary transport in education and library board areas.

I call on the Department of Education to change its outlook. The educational interests of the child, not financial or administrative criteria, must be paramount. Small schools offer positive learning environments. A solution-oriented approach must be taken. To lose a community school in a rural area is to weaken the community life, often irretrievably, as the Rural Com-munity Network has concluded; and that sets in train a spiral of rural decline. We must all do everything in our power to address this problem, and any solution must involve full consultation with rural communities. Martin McGuinness’s four commitments are a good foundation for moving forward on this issue.

Arlene Foster made interesting points about rural proofing. The Department of Education and other Government Departments charged with rural proofing must examine rural proofing in the context of Bain’s proposals as we await the sustainable schools policy.

A Member from the Ulster Unionist Party — I think it was Mr Armstrong — said earlier that a local Administration would offer the best chance for rural schools. I take this opportunity to say to the DUP that people are waiting for its positive response to recent political developments. It should come away from the drawing board where it has long invented excuses and more excuses to avoid responsibility — such as taking important educational decisions. Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I support any effort that will help us to retain our rural schools, which have always been at the heart of a country area.

First, I should say that I am a member of the board of governors at a couple of schools: Portaferry Integrated Primary School and Saint Patrick’s Primary School, Ballygalget.

As a product of a rural school, based in the townland — [Interruption.]

Are you asking for a point of order, Mr McElduff?

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do previous contributors to the debate have interests, in relation to governorships of schools, which they have not declared?

Including you, Mr McElduff?

I have done that.

I will check Hansard to see whether that is the case.

I am a product of a rural school based in the townland of Ballycran Beg, outside Kircubbin in County Down — for those who may not know where Kircubbin is, let alone Ballycran Beg. That rural school provided a sound, basic primary education for generations until 20 years ago, when the powers that be decided to build a new school in the village of Kircubbin that is one of the present-day seats of primary education for that area.

I was delighted to hear Arlene Foster speak this morning of townland schools in her constituency. Undoubtedly, the closure of rural schools has contributed to the loss of townland names in Northern Ireland, and that is to the detriment of rural culture. Although it closed as an educational establishment 20 years ago, my school in Ballycran Beg is still there, and is used as a social venue by people in that locality.

I am fearful for the future of the rural schools that are left. It appears that this Government are hell-bent on eradicating the rural schools in favour of bigger, amalgamated schools, as happened 20 years ago at Ballycran Beg. In the Strangford constituency, we had to suffer a planning directive — a ministerial statement — that effectively banned new houses in rural areas. On top of that, we have PPS14, which has been discussed and debated in this Chamber many times. It does the same thing, and will inevitably lead to the further closure of rural schools — all to the detriment of the rural community. The Bain Report will support a further reduction in numbers of rural schools.

We all huff and puff hot air in this Chamber and blame the Government for all of our ills. I challenge the boys and girls of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get off their high horses and help to manage and run this place that we call Northern Ireland — then we will save the rural schools.

As a person who was born and bred in a rural area of Northern Ireland and educated in a rural school outside Limavady, which is part of the East Londonderry constituency, I support Arlene Foster’s motion for the retention of the much-needed rural schools that have played a vital role in the education of our children. All people who live in Northern Ireland must have a choice about where they live, work and are educated.

Over the years, rural schools have competed well, despite threats of closure and numbers that have dwindled for various reasons. One prominent reason for the fall in numbers has been inflexibility and red tape on the part of the Planning Service, a large Government Depart-ment that over the years, and now through the imple-mentation of PPS14, has ensured that rural communities have been and will continue to be ethnically cleansed. That is exemplified by the story of a farmer’s family: for medical reasons, he needs his family nearby to help on the farm, but due to Planning Service red tape they are not allowed to build a home there.

In some cases, therefore, farmers’ families must move to an urban area, thereby depriving a nearby rural school of much-needed pupil numbers. That is just one example of the reasons some rural schools must close, which is music to the ears of the Government. I support the motion.

In the first instance, I want to thank the hon Members for bringing this important matter before the House. I also want to declare an interest as a governor of both Whiteabbey Primary School and Hollybank Primary School in Newtonabbey. Although I am an unrepentant townie, I want to declare a further interest, because my first principalship was in a charming little two-teacher school in county Tyrone. Indeed, it was in the same constituency that is represented by the two hon Members that brought the timely motion before the House. It may also be of particular importance for certain Members of certain parties to note that, geographically, it was, therefore, west of the Bann. I hope that they take that point.

During my period in charge, I was constantly impressed not only by the loyalty of that community to their wee school, but also by the high degree of its interest in and support for the work of the school. The school was at the centre of that community and was its core. Every school event received enthusiastic support, whether it was the sports day, the nativity play or school visits to places such as the Armagh Planetarium.

Most importantly, the attendance at meetings to discuss pupils’ progress was also first class — perhaps our urban brethren could take note of that. Another positive aspect of life there was the total commitment of the staff to the task in hand and their willingness to take on a host of extra burdens without complaint, some of which our urban colleagues would not even recognise. That all added to the quality of the educational experience provided to the children there.

Even during my tenure, it became clear that the steady increase in administration was beginning to eat into valuable teaching time. A small rural school needs support in order to deal with the current excessive demands of the curriculum and the requirements for endless record keeping and form filling. As a teaching principal in those days, it was hard enough. It must be impossible for principals who teach nowadays.

I must pay tribute to the much-maligned education and library boards that have, down the years, despite other problems, recognised those problems and have attempted, in a variety of ways, to ease the strain on principals and staff in schools. In the interests of all, it is vital that children are taught in a safe, modern environment by caring, skilful teachers who identify with the challenges that are faced by rural communities. That may require some inventive management structures, some of which have already been mentioned. For example, a “confederation” is a cluster of schools that operates under the guidance of one principal, while staff may provide wider curriculum expertise by moving between schools or having children move in the opposite direction. Perhaps that is not desirable. It may, however, be a way forward.

In other instances, school buildings that have served their purpose well for previous generations, and which may not be able to be adapted to modern standards, may need to be replaced or put to a new use by the community, so that, at least, the building remains at the centre of the community.

In the coming years, population movement within rural areas for a variety of reasons, some of which were mentioned by the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, may also begin to dictate that brand new, state-of-the-art schools should be built to satisfy current demand. Flexible approaches are vital if the confidence of rural communities is to be bolstered and renewed.

I noticed that the Member for West Tyrone made much comment about the four commitments given by the previous Minister of Education to be flexible, to look at individual cases, to seek creative solutions and to have open consultations. Those commitments must be built upon. I do not ascribe them to the previous Minister, however; I believe that they were already embedded in the Department before he arrived. The wonder is that they survived his tenure.

Population movements may cause us to look at more flexible situations. It is vital that that is done if the confidence of the rural community is to be bolstered and renewed. The turmoil that the agriculture industry is going through has forced many changes on rural communities, causing alarming suffering. Those communities deserve to be spared the double whammy of suffering as a result of those changes and as a result of insensitive school closures.

Perhaps the Assembly needs to take a careful, considerate and sympathetic look at our rural schools provision, and, in doing so, it must realise that the bums-on-seats approach that has been prevalent up to now needs to be replaced. How can we accept a proposal in which 105 school pupils on a roll become the touchstone? That would decimate 312 of our 510 rural schools, and it is absolute nonsense.

We need to recognise that good-quality educational provision already exists in rural schools. We require the Department of Education to speedily identify that good practice, support it where it exists, broadcast its benefits to a wider audience and enable other schools to adapt it to their individual uses. In that way, we can simultaneously begin to provide an excellent, modern educational experience for our rural children and inject a much-needed sense of confidence into the whole community. I support the motion.

I welcome the motion. It is clear that the Government need to change their thinking on small schools. Everyone here is aware that the rate of closure of small schools is accelerating. I represent a western constituency, which undoubtedly has the highest proportion of small schools. As has been mentioned, those schools are at the centre of community life, and their closure will be a blow to their communities. I have no doubt that both traditions share those concerns; indeed, that has been articulated in the Chamber today.

I take issue with Mr Sammy Wilson, a Member for East Antrim. He interjected during Dominic Bradley’s contribution and referred to the iron grip of the bishops. He said that that would be a hindrance to co-operation and collaboration between small schools. Nobody need fear that the Catholic Church will have control of schools, which was what that Member suggested. That would be a barrier to co-operation and collaboration. However, the rather offensive remark about the iron grip that bishops have over Catholic schools must be corrected.

I do not wish to rake over history, but most Members will be aware that when Northern Ireland was set up, the control of teachers’ appointments was an issue for the Catholic Church. The Catholic community paid a price for that until the 1990s because it had to contribute to the cost of its schools.

A Member:

Will the Member give way?

No.

However, a particular ethos on Catholic education has grown from that situation. I am not here to claim that all or only Catholic schools are good; however, the ethos of Catholic schools is good for education. Anybody who doubts that has only to look at research that educationalists conducted, school inspectors’ reports and the work that other parties who are interested in education have done over the years.

The Government, which put financial expediency before children’s educational needs, frequently tell us that small schools are too expensive to run and that the ability range in their classes is too wide. However, many educationalists and teachers tell us that the disadvantages — for the teachers and, in particular, the pupils — are outweighed by the advantages. Those advantages include: a sense of community; the close contact that the families have with the school principal and schoolteachers; the support that parents give to the school; and the important sense of place and identity that those schools foster in their pupils. Why do Governments in other European countries such as Portugal and Spain not have a problem in accepting, and providing for, the needs of small rural schools?

We understand that the education system must adapt to the twenty-first century. We are not saying that all schools should remain open for ever, but there is a duty to retain what is best in our education system. Our small schools have an excellent record, and Members must take steps to ensure that they are not hurriedly dismantled.

Assemblyman Ken Robinson, a Member for East Antrim, referred to financial constraints. Although falling pupil numbers at small rural schools are a particular constraint, one must remember that small schools are working under financial arrangements that were imposed on them some years ago; those arrange-ments favour large schools while simultaneously weakening small schools. The educational needs of our children, whether they live in urban or rural areas, should be treated equally, and they must take precedence over the financial considerations of the Government of the day. I support the amendment.

I support the motion. The threat of the closure of rural schools in Northern Ireland is a significant cause for concern and anxiety to many in the rural community. It is a further attack on the rural way of life. In the Chamber, in recent weeks, there have been debates on the closure of rural post offices; on the threats posed by the removal of fire appliances from rural fire stations; and on the closure of rural police stations. The threat to rural schools is another attack on the rural way of life, which the House must continue to oppose.

Rural schools play a vital role in rural communities, not only in their educational excellence but in helping to sustain a strong sense of place, culture and identity. Rural schools are also an important element of any thriving village or community. Children are educated closer to their homes, and they are normally more content and have a closer relationship with their teachers. Not only do rural schools provide easy accessibility for pupils and teachers, but they play an important role in the social and educational life of communities by providing a rich cultural resource and a focus for a wide range of activities.

Children living in rural areas account for the bulk of mainstream home-to-school transport in the primary sector. The closure of rural schools will result in many children having to travel many more miles to reach their schools, and, given the tragedies that occur on our roads network, that is another major issue of concern for rural communities.

Therefore, local authorities must have a clear vision for what constitutes a reasonable maximum journey time for pupils. That is preferable to defining a maximum distance, because that distance may vary according to the route chosen, for logistical reasons. Transport costs are a significant factor in calculating the projected financial benefits of any proposed reorganisation in rural areas. Transport implications must therefore play a critical role in determining whether the closure of a rural primary school can be justified.

Some small schools are finding it difficult to survive due to the declining birth rate in their area, coupled with a tightening-up of school budgets. The Government must put a strategy in place to ensure that rural children benefit from the opportunities of any new planned investment. The Government have already laid the axe at the root of many small rural schools. Future proposals to increase pupil enrolment requirements from 60 to 105, tougher budget constraints, and a wider curriculum must be reversed, and a sustainable schools policy implemented. Bigger is not better; such an approach creates many more problems and difficulties for teachers and staff, and it diminishes the one-to-one teaching relationship between teacher and pupil.

The local community and rural schools play an important part in the overall nurturing of our children and young people. We must ensure that that is taken into account in any future development of education in our rural areas. I support the motion.

I declare an interest as a governor of Glynn Primary School, which is considered a small rural school. I express my disbelief — even shock — at the minimum school roll figures that were contained in the Bain Report: 140 for urban primary schools and 105 for rural primary schools. We must consider the implications of minimum school rolls, both generally and for specific schools.

In its submission to the independent strategic review of education, the Rural Development Council indicated that, in rural areas, 28 schools had fewer than 28 pupils; 90 schools had between 29 and 50 pupils; 194 schools had between 51 and 100 pupils; 159 schools had between 100 and 200 pupils; and 55 schools had 200 or more pupils. The recommendations of the Bain Report would put at risk almost 60% of our rural schools. That is unbelievable and unacceptable. I believe that the amendment has much merit, and it is clear that the quality of education is more important than an arbitrary number.

Schools, post offices, local shops and churches are at the heart of rural communities. As we heard during recent debates, the post offices and possibly the retail outlets in our rural communities are at risk. If the Bain Report were adopted, schools would be at risk — what then would be left in many rural villages?

In the absence of the community’s focal points from which a positive community spirit flows, there is a danger that a level of poor community spirit and antisocial activity will emerge. We will then spend additional money on policing and on trying to correct the ills that may occur. It is much better to maintain rural communities as they are presently constituted.

I am an active member of the Glynn Community Association, which tries to improve the local environment and community spirit by organising local events and tidy-ups. We receive some valued support from the Rural Development Council and the North Antrim Community Network. I believe that if 60% of our rural schools were to close, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s objectives would be unattainable. We need joined-up thinking between Departments.

I would like to turn to Glynn Primary School, of which I am a governor and at which my three children were fortunate enough to be educated. They experienced a happy, family, educational environment where they were encouraged to learn. Happiness and security are essential requirements if children are to do their best. Glynn has an excellent record on those requirements and on parental and community support. Those are important issues.

Glynn offers an incredible range of extra-curricular activities because of community and parental support: volunteers take football, hockey and rugby coaching in a school of some 50 pupils — fortunately, it is a growing school. The school participates in Irish dancing competitions and music festivals; there are Spanish lessons and a wide range of events. Many schools twice its size do not provide such a wide range of extra-curricular activities.

Glynn Primary School was at the advanced stage of gaining approval for an extension. Two mobiles have been in use for a long time — in fact, I used one of them myself more than 40 years ago. That is how long Glynn has had temporary classrooms.

However, as a result of this report, the extension, which was one of the priorities of the North Eastern Education and Library Board, has been put on hold. Such a delay, in a school that is excelling, which provides quality education and which is well thought of in the local community, is intolerable.

Interestingly, large patches of ground around the village were recently sold to developers for significant amounts of money. I expect substantial housing development and an increase in the size of the village before too long, which would undoubtedly result in additional need for schooling in the area.

That does not apply just to Glynn Primary School: I could be talking about Carnalbanagh Primary School, Carnlough Controlled Integrated Primary School, Ballyboley Primary School or Toreagh Primary School. All are small rural schools with fewer than 105 pupils, and all are being put at risk by this report. The report must not be accepted.

I wish to highlight the issue of Island Magee Primary School. The Island Magee Peninsula had three rural primary schools, which, five years ago, agreed to amalgamate on a new school site. The community was led to believe that a new school site would be purchased in August 2003, but that did not happen until November 2006. The Minister, the Department, and the education authority must look carefully at the procedure for amalgamation where local communities agree that that is the best way forward. It is intolerable that it has taken so long. Delays in planning and in economic appraisal have added considerably to the time that it should have taken to complete the change. I ask the Minister to look carefully at the process and not only grant money to purchase the school but tell us when we will hear that the amalgamation, which was agreed more than five years ago, will receive money for the new build. It is intolerable that it is taking so long.

While I was researching this, I came across some interesting information from America. A doctor Wenfan Yan, who has a PhD, carried out a study in Pennsylvania entitled ‘Is Bigger Better? A Comparison of Rural School Districts’. He concludes:

“This study, like many others, did not find consistent evidence to support the idea that bigger is better or, conversely, that smaller is better.”

He also states:

“The results indicate that school district size might not be the direct reason for lower or higher educational performance of students.”

Therefore, bigger schools are not necessarily better. There is a wide range of schools in Northern Ireland. Given the correct support and high-quality teaching, small rural schools can provide a broad curriculum and successful educational environment for their pupils. Size must not be the sole determination of whether a school continues to exist. I was struck by the amendment’s emphasis on quality, which ought to be an important element in determining the future of schools. If it is recognised that successful schools are providing quality education, that should be taken into consideration when providing quality education for all students in the future.

Many small rural schools continue to operate within budget. If a school provides quality education within budget, why on earth would anyone change it? I hope that all Members will join me in supporting the amendment.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I was not in the original starting line-up for Sinn Féin today, so my contribution is a hastily adapted version of another Member’s speech. I thought that I should at least change the first paragraph in which my colleague described herself as a mother of young children. [Laughter.]

I congratulate Mr Brolly on his honesty.

I, and many other Members from rural constituencies, continue to spend considerable time working with rural schools, and particularly with primary schools that face closure — be they in our constituencies or schools in other constituencies that have asked for our support.

The debate on the threat facing rural schools underlines — as has every debate in the Transitional Assembly — the importance of ending British direct rule and having locally elected and, therefore, locally empowered and accountable Ministers. All parties must rise to that challenge, particularly the party opposite that brought the issue of rural schools to the Floor. In the real world, people are tired of hot-air debates. Although serious issues are discussed, the debates serve only to highlight that the parties are powerless to effect any change. A local, enlightened Education Minister is urgently required — someone like Martin McGuinness. [Laughter.]

During his period in office, Mr McGuinness demonstrated a genuine commitment to rural schools and had the power to make things happen. The four bullet points outlined by my hon Friend from West Tyrone, Mr McElduff, marked his reasonable approach. In December 2000, Mr McGuinness intervened to protect small rural schools, such as Churchtown and Toberlane, two co-educational primary schools just north of Cookstown with enrolments of 25 and 24 pupils respectively.

A good example of the Minister’s innovative thinking was his creation of a federation of two primary schools at Glenullin and Tirkeeran, which are located, as I am sure all Members know, just outside Garvagh in my constituency. The federation involved the children from primary one to primary four being taught in Glenullin and the senior pupils being taught in Tirkeeran, and the principal of the latter was appointed principal of the federation.

The Department of Education and CCMS opposed Mr McGuinness’s idea, but he persuaded them to try it for a year. The federation has now been in place for five years and has been incredibly successful in every regard. I do not believe that direct-rule Minister Eagle would have been similarly motivated or determined.

An example of the serious ill effects that the closure of a rural school can have is the experience of St Mary’s Primary School in Aghadowey. After a long struggle, in which all the area’s elected representatives fought for two years to keep the school open with 20 pupils, it was closed. Five pupils went to St John’s Primary School in Coleraine; five went to one of the schools that I mentioned; and another five went to a school in Balleran. The children were separated from one another, as well as being taken out of their own community. That is a stark example of what can happen when a rural school closes.

The Bain Report, and Maria Eagle’s immediate response to it, has caused deep concern in many rural schools. In the future, we need to work together as political leaders to ensure that we get the balance right. The threat facing rural schools is part of a broader threat to rural communities, which has been mentioned regularly. We should be aiming for statutory guidance that includes a presumption against the closure of rural primary schools. I share my Sinn Féin colleagues’ belief that the best educational and social interests of the child must be our primary consideration in considering a strategic response to threats to the viability of rural schools.

Other key factors must also be recognised. Like other Members, I believe that school policies, and those concerning small rural schools in particular, must recognise the valuable role that schools play in sustaining rural communities. We must also recognise that small rural schools with a good teacher-pupil ratio can bring out the very best in children. Collaborative working arrangements between neighbouring schools that are struggling for numbers should be considered an essential option.

It is also essential that a strong network of rural schools be preserved as part of the infrastructure required to reinforce rural communities and to ensure equality of opportunity and accessibility to education. At the same time, however, I am aware of the difficulties and challenges faced by small secondary schools in delivering good-quality education. Often, small schools must rely to an unreasonable degree on the commitment and dedication of too few teachers and cannot provide the same breadth of curriculum, teaching skills and opportunities for social interaction for pupils as larger schools. Such schools should be given additional support over a sustained period in order to minimise any educational disadvantages faced by their pupils.

Like other colleagues, I wish to pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of teachers over the years. They and their predecessors have put in enormous efforts to provide a firm educational foundation for children. Often, those schools were attended by the parents, grandparents and even great-grandparents of current pupils. The entire community knows and identifies with their local school and understandably cherishes and supports it.

All the research shows that partnerships between parents, schools and the wider community are the key to a successful education for our children. The aim must be to build on those relationships.

Members must accept also that in some circumstances, where schools are in a poor physical condition, the burden on teachers to deliver the curriculum — across a wide range of age groups and abilities — is excessive. Sometimes, change is needed, perhaps through amalgamation, as has been described or — sadly — through closure.

I refer once more to the approach of Martin McGuinness. We need flexibility, and we must consider each case on its own merits to ensure that schools are not closed without full engagement with the local community and without having explored fully every possibility of keeping them open.

I support the motion.

Like the Member who spoke before me, I have not written a speech. However, I congratulate and thank the Members opposite for raising points that have given me the basis of one.

For many members of the public, debates in this place seem to involve a lot of tired, hot air, because we have no responsibility to take decisions on the basis of the resolutions that we make at the end of each plenary sitting. The obligation, therefore, is on the party opposite to do what it has to do to ensure that the Assembly can get up and running. All other Members are united in the belief that there cannot be an Executive and a functioning Assembly while one party refuses to support the courts, the police and the functions of law and order. If Members want to get away from tired old debates, we must ask the party opposite, which has said that it is time to do the right thing on policing, to do precisely that. That is all that I want to say about that.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

I will not rehearse all the arguments in favour of small rural primary schools. Members have done that well already. I want to speak about what can be done to ensure the survival of at least some rural schools. Members know what the issues are: the costs; the quality of the educational experience; and the width of that experience. If schools were to share principals, or principals were appointed to look after a number of schools, the burden of management could be shared. Similarly, through sharing teachers — and employing peripatetic teachers — the educational experience could be widened. Of course, facilities should be shared between schools.

Recently, I attended the opening of the University of Ulster Sports Academy. There I met many youngsters from small primary schools. The only physical education that they received was through university students visiting their schools and training them in football, basketball and so on. The students were able to give that additional help in schools to widen the youngsters’ educational experience.

However, even when we have done all that, there will still be the problem of surplus places and additional costs. Mr Gallagher implied that we should not have to worry about finance. Were they not having hot-air debates, but making real decisions, Members would have to worry about finance. Whether they like it or not, per pupil, the smallest primary school costs three times— about £6,000 — the amount of schools that have over 150 pupils. In still larger schools, the costs even out. That is not a case for closing down all the small schools, but, since there are additional costs involved in keeping them open, we must consider how the extra finance can be raised. That is exactly what the motion says. Many of these policies should be subject to rural proofing to ensure that small rural primary schools are kept open.

Consider some of the solutions proposed in this debate and the attitudes adopted by the parties opposite. Rather than engaging on the issues of how money may be saved and how the communities may be encouraged to share schools and facilities and to co-operate, there is, among those parties, resistance to those policies.

I intervened when a Member opposite referred to co-operation between schools. One of the difficulties with co-operation between schools, and one of the problems with not co-operating, is the cost involved. The Bain Report said that supporting five sectors of education — controlled, maintained, voluntary, grammar, integrated and Irish medium — incurs significant costs. However, when it comes to addressing that problem, no value is added by having five separate administrative structures. If we want to keep schools open, we must accept that money should not be spent on expensive administrative structures. That must be faced up to, and Members should not forget that the boards will have to go.

There is, however, the suggestion that that would impact on the CCMS, and, according to ‘The Irish News’ last Friday, the Church is ready to go to battle on the issue. It does not want to lose control of its schools. The Church would prefer to keep CCMS, with the control of teachers, schools and the cost of that administration, rather than face up to the financial consequences.

That also has a second impact, and it is not just the cost of administration. There will be painful choices for every Member. People in the North Eastern Education and Library Board are already lobbying me and asking if I realise the impact that the closure of the boards will have on jobs. Members in the Chamber will have to face hard decisions about the boards, and, if that is the case, Members opposite will have to face up to the consequences that that may have for CCMS and for the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE). We cannot have it one way for one set of administrators and a different way for another set of administrators.

Another consequence of not facing up to those issues is that the solution suggested by Dominic Bradley — to have greater collaboration, co-operation and sharing of premises to try to keep a local school — would be made much more difficult. People in the unionist community would be unhappy and hard to convince that their children should be educated in some kind of shared educational facility, half of which would be in the grip of the Church. CCMS and the Church must realise that, and they may realise it too late. Having embraced the Costello Report, the Burns Report and the idea of local collaboration, they are now beginning to realise the consequences. If Members opposite are so enthusiastic about that kind of model of co-operation, then they must realise the consequences for the structures that will administer that model.

I noticed that Sinn Féin supports — as one would expect — locally elected “enlightened” Ministers such as Martin McGuinness, and I suspect that that is part of the reason for the amendment. Look at one of the policies that the “enlightened” Minister, Martin McGuinness, instigated. Against the background of falling rolls, surplus places and rising costs, the “enlightened” Minister introduced a policy under which Irish-medium schools and integrated schools with an intake as low as 12 pupils could be opened and financed by the state Bain said about that:

“The establishment of new Integrated and Irish-medium schools … increases the number of schools at a time of falling pupil numbers and, therefore, contributes to the incidence of small schools and the level of surplus capacity.”

Save us from enlightened Ministers like that, is all I can say. [Interruption.]

I am nearly finished.

If we persist with a policy of opening new, small integrated or Irish-medium schools because it happens to be the political flavour of the month for a particular party, there will be knock-on consequences for other schools. That is another thing that this Assembly has to face up to. In this debate there has been no evidence of that. We have heard Members saying that they want all the rural schools to be kept open, but they have not been prepared to look at the hard consequences of such a policy.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

I am the chairman of the board of governors at Stewartstown Primary School and a governor of Coagh Primary School.

This issue is close to the heart of many of us in Mid Ulster. There are numerous small rural schools in the constituency; they achieve excellent educational results; but they face the threat of closure as yet another Minister or professor produces a report or continues to roll out the Labour Government’s policies. It seems that the current policy is to concentrate on cities and towns, moving people’s homes out of the countryside by imposing the implementation of PPS 14, and forcing people out of jobs in the countryside, whether in farming, rural post offices, or rural schools as proposed by Sir George Bain.

It is obvious that the Government are out of touch with realities in Northern Ireland, a predominantly rural region of the United Kingdom whose character is defined by precisely the things that the Government are trying to remove from our rural way of life. This is yet another issue that would benefit from the restoration of a devolved Assembly, which is essential for the future of Northern Ireland. It is time that we progressed to a fully democratic Assembly without delay.

There has been a lot of hot air today, but it has all fallen on deaf ears. Many policy-makers seem to work on the assumption that the typical primary school is urban, with a relatively large enrolment. This tunnel vision has encouraged the view that small primary schools are somehow deficient and should be rationalised into larger units. Northern Ireland has always had many small schools, mostly because of the rural character of the area. If we continue to lose these schools, there is great danger of weakening rural communities.

The Bain Report, published in December 2006, dealt a further blow to rural communities in Northern Ireland and created further doubt and uncertainty for parents, pupils and teachers. Sir George Bain recom-mended that rural primary schools of less than 105 pupils and post-primary schools of less than 500 pupils should be considered for closure.

He also called for radical reform of the school planning system to find ways of dealing with the problem of more than 53,000 empty desks in schools across Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that changes in the provision of education are required as that number continues to rise. However, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work across the Province, as it fails to take into account the particular characteristics of the area.

The difficulties faced by small schools as pupil numbers decline are not only a rural problem. Small urban schools are faced with similar problems. Demographic changes are having a strong impact on the long-term viability, both financial and educational, of schools across the board. The greatest impact of these recommendations will be felt in rural areas. The region could soon be facing the sort of depopulation of the countryside that has scarred central France.

We have seen time and again that the closing of the village primary school is the death knell of the community. It makes it more difficult for people to live in those areas; they are forced to transport their children considerable distances, and many are not prepared to do it.

A school that parents can trust to educate their children keeps people from moving away from villages, farms and rural businesses, of which there are many in Northern Ireland. Those schools can offer vital development and maintenance of rural communities. If a school disappears, along with other services, so eventually will the inhabitants.

The Rural Development Council has reported that there are at least 312 rural primary schools in Northern Ireland with fewer than 105 pupils, and 37 post-primary schools with fewer than 300 pupils. In my constituency of Mid Ulster, 13 of the 25 primary schools in the Cookstown District Council area and 15 of the 30 primary schools in the Magherafelt District Council area will face review under the Bain criteria.

Seven primary schools in Mid Ulster have fewer than 40 pupils, but they each form the bedrock of the community in their respective areas. Recently, I have been working in support of the Queen Elizabeth II Primary School in Pomeroy, which is fighting against closure. In October, I received a recommendation from the Southern Education and Library Board that closure was not an acceptable option and that the board would consider how it could find financial support so that the school could continue to operate in that isolated area. Should that school close, the result would be unacceptable travelling times to other schools. Likewise, schools in areas such as Stewartstown and Donaghmore face uncertainty and are working continuously to ward off the threat of closure.

There is enormous long-term significance in the worth of keeping early education close to home. It enhances the connection between rural schools and the community, creating a curriculum that is locally relevant, and links education in the school with the surrounding area. That, in turn, helps pupils to appreciate their local community and makes them more likely to settle there when they grow up.

A village school is not only a place to impart knowledge to pupils; it is a place for all of the community to learn, to act, and to participate in local life. It has been assumed that bigger is always better, but that is not sustained by the hard evidence, and the case for the quality of education that is provided by small schools is indisputable.

The 2006 report of the Chief Inspector of the Education and Training Inspectorate showed that many schools with 60 or 70 pupils performed outstandingly for successive years — better than many larger schools. Small schools can offer a warm, family-like atmosphere within which there are better opportunities than in large schools to address individual needs, experience mixed-age classes, and give opportunities to enhance individual learning, co-operation and group work.

We should examine the experiences of other European countries, such as Finland, which is a large country with only 5 million people, but is the country with the most rural area in Europe. There are about 3,400 primary schools in Finland, more than half of which are considered to be small rural schools. Most of those schools have two or three teachers and between 11 and 60 pupils.

I wish to place on record my appreciation of the excellent work of the principals and teachers in all of the rural schools in Mid Ulster and across Northern Ireland. They continue to face doubts over their future, yet strive to provide education and guidance to our children and grandchildren that is second to none. They work very hard to transform barriers into opportunities. I urge the Government to put in place a strategy to protect the viability of those schools, similar to that in countries such as Finland and Sweden.

I declare an interest as a member of the Western Education and Library Board’s controlled schools working group, which was once called the small schools working group; as a member of the boards of governors of Gortin Primary School and Erganagh Primary School — both small rural schools; and as a former teacher in a rural secondary school, namely Castlederg High School.

We have held some very interesting debates recently on agriculture, the Fire Service, and post offices. I have welcomed those debates.

Surely it is obvious to everyone in the House that our Civil Service mandarins do not understand the reality of rurality. That is because they are financially driven and think about what is economically viable rather than about what is right and good for our people.

I see that Mr McElduff and Mr O’Reilly have joined us. They may realise that in the Western Education and Library Board area, for example, the main impact of rural-school closures will be on the maintained sector. They cannot deny that that is a fact. The demographics of the west mean that falling numbers are having an impact on that sector, particularly on primary schools. We have seen the impact that falling numbers have had on the secondary sector. For example, when a major school in Strabane was created, a secondary school in Plumbridge felt the impact.

Mr Gallagher would not take an intervention earlier when he was lauding CCMS — or the maintained sector, which is how he described the Catholic sector. I was planning to challenge him on the dictatorial nature of CCMS, particularly at diocesan level, and on the way in which it acted on the closure of a Plumbridge secondary school. The people of that area were not properly consulted, even though they fought bravely and sincerely to retain their secondary school.

As I have said, we are not necessarily referring only to primary schools: the proposals will have an impact on the secondary sector in many areas. As many Members have said, those schools are essential elements of hamlets, villages and parishes in the rural community: they are part of the rural hub.

I think that it was Mr Buchanan who talked about the lengths of time that our young kids spend on buses getting to and from school. Our schools are spread over a wide area. If we thin that number, imagine the amount of time that we will expect young primary-school kids and those who are going to secondary school for the first time to spend travelling to and from school. I am sure that some children in my area spend as long waiting for, getting into and transferring onto school buses as I do driving to get here. Kids might spend an hour and a half or perhaps two hours on school buses in the morning and again after school. Think of the impact that that has on extra-curricular activities. School is not just a 9.00 am to 3.00 pm operation; there are after-school activities. If we thin out the number of our schools even further, the distances mean that children cannot benefit from those additions to the curriculum that are available to many others.

Staffing is a major issue in the school budget. Many people forget that our small rural schools have loyal staff who remain there for a long time. In some cases, staff remain in those schools for their entire teaching life. Many of the staff are on the higher rate of pay. Think of the impact that that has on the school budget. Surely the sensible thing to do is to pay all teachers centrally. That would mean that teachers’ salaries would be removed from the school budget, which would then be properly distributed among the kids who attend that school.

To conclude, I will attempt to paraphrase Voltaire — I cannot translate directly from the French. He said that success does not necessarily go to the big battalions, rather to the best shots. Let us give our rural children the best shot that we can at a good educational start in their own rural communities and in their own local schools. Small, with imagination, can be best.

This has been a useful debate, which has been pitched at the right level. Arlene Foster began the debate by making the very important point that rural schools that continue to be successful are capped in numbers. That situation is like a two-sided coin: heads, I lose; tails, I lose. A school in Kilrea at which I taught is an example of one such school. That school had excellent examination results and full enrolment, but was not allowed to increase its pupil numbers.

As a former teacher, I admit to a certain amount of nostalgia about the teaching profession. I began my teaching career in a school in north Donegal, which was surrounded by the mountains, the lakes, the sea, and lovely places such as Malin Head, Culdaff, Gleneely, Moville, Clonmany and Ballyliffin. Madam Speaker, I cannot leave out the area that you frequent, which is Fahan.

Dominic Bradley told us that schools are part of the history of a place, and that the closure of a school destroys the history of that place. That is true. I thank David McNarry for pointing out that the purpose of our amendment is not to rubbish the motion, but to add to it. Barry McElduff told us that he is a school governor, and there will now be a demand for new road maps to that area. No doubt, one of those seeking a map will be the Duchess of Abercorn.

Kieran McCarthy asked the DUP and Sinn Féin to get off their high horses. I am pleased that he did not bring back the pantomime horse. Ken Robinson upstaged Barry McElduff by saying that he is a governor of two schools. He made very important points and acknow-ledged the contribution made by the education and library boards.

Sammy Wilson — if he is still listening to the debate — attacked the Catholic Church for its support of Catholic education. Tommy Gallagher pointed out that in every other part of the civilised world, that is not a problem. I was disappointed that Sammy later said that if the Catholic Church were in charge of schools, people from the Protestant community would have difficulty. That is absolute rubbish. The vast majority of Protestants are not bigots and they would have no difficulty with that. In my area, the involvement of the Catholic Church in education is an enhancement and an enrichment of children’s lives, and the Church has been involved for a very long time.

As a young father, Roy Beggs pointed out the difficulties that have arisen in his part of the North, and he mentioned research in the United States. Francie Brolly immediately admitted that he was cogging his speech. That is always a very dangerous practice, because if the speech contains mistakes, one has to take the rap for it. The small school in Aghadowey that was closed is called St Mary’s Primary School, not St John’s, which is still open.

Billy Armstrong talked about the rural part of his constituency, and Derek Hussey told us about Plumbridge, although he has probably heard just one side of the story.

The argument that small rural schools are not viable made its appearance in an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report in 1991. However, within two years, it was withdrawn because it was fatally flawed. Most of us were surprised that the same old findings reappeared in the Bain Report.

Several Members have accepted that there is always a need for some rationalisation. That is part of life. However, that should not entail turning the whole education system upside down. A cull on the scale that is proposed is outright madness and a direct attack on every rural community. In my constituency, that would undo all the good work that has been done to regenerate towns and villages that almost died during the long, dark years of the troubles. For that to happen to them during peacetime when we are supposed to be progressive, thoughtful and committed to equality for all, would make a complete mockery of democracy.

The debate has relied on much research from England. I hope that I do not offend anyone by mentioning a recent report that was published in the Republic, which shows that small rural schools still take in 50% of pupils and a similar percentage of teachers. I know that some Assembly Members do not like to talk about our neighbours. However, the reality of life, North and South, is that we are still largely a rural people with similar needs and, of course, similar threats. As several Members have pointed out, that was true of post offices, schools and many other facets of life.

The report also recognises that smaller schools have several positive features and few of the drawbacks that have been traditionally attributed to them. I should, of course, mention studies in the UK, which show that curriculum provision in smaller schools is similar to that which emerged in studies of larger schools. There is no indication of greater social cohesiveness among children in larger schools. I should point out that, frequently, children of different ages work and play together and that the differentiation between those groups is not as pronounced as it is in large schools. Most importantly, research on the effects of class size has shown that pupils become more engaged academically and socially when class size is reduced and that increased engagement in the classroom is likely to lead to increased learning.

Teachers tend to find management easier in smaller classes, with fewer behavioural problems. They also feel more proactive and less reactive in their approach to managing student behaviour in smaller classes. Several Members raised that point. The research carried out by Veenman in 1996 suggests that multi-grade, consecutive-grade settings provide teachers with opportunities to use innovative teaching approaches that are associated with enhanced pupil learning.

Will the Member give way?

I will give way, even though I am making my winding-up speech.

I appreciate that, and I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member accept that although youngsters are more engaged in smaller classes — provided that they are not too small — one of the difficulties in some small rural schools is that problems can arise in classes where children of three or four different levels, perhaps primary 1 to primary 4, are being taught together?

I am glad that Mr Wilson has raised that point. There are many devices and support mechanisms that can be used to overcome difficulties in small rural schools. Simply to cull rural schools is not the answer. Quite frankly, if a fraction of the energy that has recently been expended on some of those issues was channelled into the future of small rural primary schools, and, indeed, small secondary schools — to which other Members have referred — threats to schools would not be gaining credibility but would be on the rubbish heap where they belong. Children are not battery hens. They do not have to be forced into large schools.

I want to finish on a positive note. I have absolutely no doubt that a new Assembly will be elected on 26 March. No one can be sure which parties will be biggest. I hope that the public uses its common sense when voting, because that crisis and others cannot continue.

It is wrong to allow the direct rulers to systematically strip this part of the island of its greatest asset — its children and its rural schools, whether they are primary or secondary.

It has been said many times that the rural primary school is the heartbeat of a rural com-munity; when the rural school is taken away, that com-munity starts to die. My colleague Tom Buchanan said that the Government seem to want to attack everything rural: post offices; planning; police stations; stores; churches; and now schools. It seems that the Government are making a determined effort to take on everything that is rural, decimate it and leave it a desolate place.

Some interesting comments were made around the Chamber today, particularly by Mr McElduff. He eulogised the former Minister of Education — I think that he had him at sainthood status at one stage. He said that Mr McGuinness, when he was Minister, listened to what everybody had to say before he would make a decision. I am sure that the House will note how attentive and deliberate Mr McGuinness was when it came to abolishing the 11-plus. On the last day that the Assembly was in place, he walked into the Chamber and, with a fell stroke of his dictatorial pen, he stroked out the 11-plus. Whether Members are in favour of the 11-plus or against it is not the argument or debate — the dictatorial attitude adopted by the Minister got many people annoyed. Mr McElduff, you should put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Please speak through the Chair, Lord Morrow.

Madam Speaker, I was not aware that you smoked a pipe. That is why I did not address the comment through you.

I have some interesting matters to bring to the attention of the House. Six days before Christmas, the NIO Minister David Hanson made an interesting comment to my party colleagues in the House of Commons. I will quote what he said so that we can put it up his nose too:

“Government recognise the important role that rural schools play both in children’s education and in the cohesion of rural communities.”

I am sure that many Members will forgive me if I am a bit cynical about those comments. It is not in my make-up to be cynical, as most people know. However, when I read such remarks, my cynicism begins to take over. Mr Hanson will be kept in mind of what he has said, because the DUP intends to hold the Government to that commitment.

I will proceed with my speech now that I have made the introduction — those were merely remarks. It is important that rural children are not disadvantaged by the Department’s plans for post-primary transfer. The needs of rural schoolchildren should not be overlooked when tie-breakers are being determined to resolve the allocation of pupils to oversubscribed schools.

Ronan Gorman is the chief executive of Countryside Alliance Ireland (CAI), the organisation that does such wonderful work for our countryside, rural sports and the rural way of life. I place on record my appreciation — and, I suspect, that of the whole House, with perhaps one exception, and he is not here — for what the Countryside Alliance does for the rural community. It was no less a person than Mr Gorman who said that the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006:

“has major implications for local children and their education … We welcome many of the proposals aimed at ensuring that all pupils must have the opportunity to acquire and develop specific cross-curricular skills and approve of the Department’s requirements for schools to provide access to a wider range of courses for older pupils. However, the key for many rural children will be the criteria used to select pupils for particular schools.”

Mr Gorman continues and, as I found his remarks interesting, I want to quote him accurately:

“CAI is fundamentally opposed to selection criteria based primarily on the distance that rural pupils live from particular schools. This would unfairly discriminate against rural pupils who may live considerable distances from any school. We intend to …ensure very pupil has equitable access to appropriate education facilities.”

That is a true and timely remark, and such a situation must not be allowed to develop.

Children who live in rural areas and travel to schools in local market towns enrich and bring added value to those schools. The closure of rural schools is not a phenomenon peculiar to Northern Ireland. Members should consider what happens in other parts of the world. Mr Armstrong mentioned Finland, and I want Members to consider what has been said in America about the threat to rural schools that, believe it or not, is also faced there. A study of rural schools in all 50 US states was conducted, and they face the same challenges as here: students with disabilities, students who cannot speak English particularly well and students from ethnic minorities.

Those problems are all relevant in Northern Ireland, and there are many students from ethnic minorities in the town from which I come — probably the largest ethnic community in Northern Ireland resides in Dungannon. In the American study, rural schools in Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming all proved — relative to poverty levels and other challenges that they face — to be doing well. Rural education in those states is characterised by a smaller organisational scale, including a lower student-teacher ratio, smaller schools and smaller districts. Nonetheless, rural schools are still at risk.

My colleague Arlene Foster referred to an example of the risk to rural schools in Northern Ireland. In one district electoral area in South Tyrone, six rural or village primary schools are under threat. The decision has already been taken to close two of them, and the remaining four are equally vulnerable. Can anyone imagine the devastating impact that the closure of six village or rural primary schools will have on that community, which is part of a small district electoral area in Northern Ireland? If the Government proceed with closing down those schools, the impact will be devastating.

If the Northern Ireland Assembly is restored, difficult decisions will have to be taken. Not every single rural or village primary school will survive. No one on this side of the House, or anyone who supports the motion, says that that should happen. Realistically, a different approach must be taken to rural schools. My colleague Sammy Wilson said that other matters must be considered and that there should be closer co-operation in some cases. Why can that not happen?

I was amazed that the SDLP went off on a tangent and tried to say that that represented an irresponsible attack on its ethos and the Catholic education system — it is anything but. It was an attempt to bring a degree of realism into the education debate and particularly the future of rural primary schools.

I hope that the House will unite in agreeing the DUP’s motion and that parties will clearly say to the Government, and particularly to Mr Hanson, whose remarks I have quoted, that they will no longer put up with the decimation and closure of rural primary schools. The DUP intends to make a stand and will not allow that to continue month in, month out, year in, year out.

Mr Hanson does not pick up a single vote in Northern Ireland, yet he thinks that he can step in with impunity and, with the stroke of a pen, abolish rural schools that have provided some of the best students that could ever be expected of any education system. I appeal to the House to forget its pettiness and unite behind the motion to save and maintain the future of rural primary schools, and, vitally, rural communities.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the threat to rural schools in Northern Ireland; calls upon the Government to recognise the vital role that such schools play in the community; and urges the Government to put in place a strategy, where possible, to protect the viability of these schools.

Adjourned at 4.41 pm.