asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware of the distress caused to intending candidates by the refusal to admit them to the training college entrance examination because they had not attained the age of 17 years by 1st August; and of the resultant possibility of damage to the career and development of such applicants; and whether he will take such steps as are necessary to rectify the position.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Training College Entrance Examination.
27.
I am satisfied that the requirements of a minimum age of 17 years in the cases of applicants for entry to the national teaching profession is a reasonable one. The teaching profession is one which requires that a certain degree of maturity be reached by those entering it. Furthermore normal progression through the post-primary school course ensures that in general students have reached the age of 17 by the time they complete that course.
Surely the Minister will agree that it is very unfair, if not ridiculous, that a pupil who is otherwise fully qualified, has passed all the appropriate examinations, is debarred from going on to training college by reason of age and is thereby compelled to virtually waste one year of his or her life in a class on subjects which he or she has already done? In the circumstances does the Minister not feel that he is placing a penalty on youth and on the most highly talented people in the country in that regard?
I cannot accept that. I have explained to the Deputy that a certain degree of maturity is necessary and, in fact, the pressures on me are coming from the opposite direction. There have been suggestions that we should allow into the training college mature students, students much older, in fact, than the present age. I could not agree that the minimum age of 17 is too low.
Is the Minister aware that there are a considerable number of cases, a number of which have certainly been brought to my attention, in which the head of the school, the teachers responsible for the child and the parents of the child are all satisfied that it is in the child's interest to be allowed to proceed? Would he agree that the teachers, the school and the parents, when their views all coincide about a given child, whom they actually know, are more likely to be reliable in relation to that child's interest and future than the numerically based views of the officials in his Department who are not infallible?
Of course, I accept they are not infallible.
The Minister acts as if they were.
No. Simply because the Department do not agree with the views of the Deputy he criticises them as being fallible. In this case, particularly at present when we have only a two-year course of training for teachers, my view is that 17 is a reasonable age.
Question No. 28.
Would the Minister at least agree in a special case, where it is proved, as Deputy Cruise-O'Brien said, that the boy or girl is particularly adult and otherwise qualified to go on to a training session, that he ought to have an open mind in this matter and consider such special case?
It is very difficult to deal with special cases in a matter such as this.
It is more convenient to apply a rule of thumb.
No. It will be recognised that a young person going into training at 17, starts teaching at 19, and that is about the minimum age we could expect the necessary maturity for the purpose of teaching.
Many teachers are teaching without being qualified.
Question No. 28.
Would the Minister not agree that maturity is not directly or totally tied to physical age?
Of course I know that.
Then, for what reason is there any physical age limit?
Generally speaking, you could say it is.
We are not concerned with generally speaking, we are concerned with a particular case. Would the Minister not agree that there should be no regulation which bans people on grounds of physical age and does not allow for contrary evidence to be produced that they are of sufficient maturity?
Those are just academic arguments.
On the contrary they are practical considerations.
They are purely academic.
They are not.
In view of the fact that the training course for national teachers is now about to be extended to three years and that in this respect teachers would now be a year older than usual when they are taking up their duties would the Minister have another look at this?
Consideration could be given in that respect.
Question No. 28.
Would the Minister seriously consider the utter frustration, boredom and waste of time in sending a boy or girl back to a class he or she has already been through?
I have given a full answer to that question.