Vol. 465 No. 3
22 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9541/96]
23 Mr. Ellis asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9547/96]
25 Mr. Andrews asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9545/96]
26 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9542/96]
27 Mr. M. Ahern asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9544/96]
32 Mr. O'Leary asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9540/96]
39 Mr. Killeen asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9548/96]
41 Mr. Flood asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9549/96]
44 Mr. Foley asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9539/96]
45 Mr. E. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9543/96]
55 Mr. Martin asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9538/96]
57 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Education the strategy being adopted by her Department regarding the allocation of funds in respect of the provision of inservice training for teachers; whether a national plan has been devised in relation to this issue; and the amount of EU funds that have been spent to date under the operational programme on inservice training for teachers. [9546/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 39, 41, 44, 45, 55 and 57 together.
The main priority areas for inservice training are set out in the White Paper, Charting our Education Future. Funds for inservice training are allocated in accordance with these priorities. Broadly, the priorities fall into the areas of facilitating the major curricular changes and reforms, advancing the professional development of teachers, training for managements and parents.
Discussions with the partners in education are nearing completion in regard to producing a fully developed and detailed framework or plan for inservice. These discussions are taking place in the primary and post primary incareer advisory committees, on which the Partners are represented, and which are chaired by my Department.
A draft framework documents is currently being considered by the committees. This document will provide a well structured basis for inservice provision and for the allocation of funds.
The total amount provided under the Community Support Framework for incareer development at first and second level for the period 1994-99 is £36.5 million at 1995 prices. This provision is confinanced by the European Commission under the Operational Programme for Human Resources Development to the extent of £27.4 million or 75 per cent. Expenditure to the end of the financial year 1995 is estimated at £9 million, in respect of which EU funding at the 75 per cent rate is claimed.
The funding provides for inservice training for teachers and for management training, including parent training. In addition, the running costs of the education centre network are funded under this programme.
Does the Minister consider it unacceptable and incompetent that nearly two years after the introduction of the operational programme we still do not have a national strategic plan for the provision of inservice training in our education system, which draws down nearly £27 million of EU money?
I am very satisfied with the way this money has been invested following discussions with the partners in education. Two committees are involved in this, the primary and post primary incareer advisory committees. I did not ask them to deal with their job quickly but in-depth. The partners in education are on these committees chaired by the Department. I am confident when the framework document now before those committees is published we will have the blueprint for expenditure from now until the end of this programme.
Preparation is the key to teaching a class and it seems extraordinary we did not have a plan prior to drawing down the funds. There is widespread concern among the partners about the way this scheme is being administered. There is a lack of transparency in the allocation of the funding and the treatment of the partners. The committees the Minister mentioned were described to me as nothing more than smokescreens. There is considerable unhappiness among the partners about the manner in which this considerable sum of EU money is being spent. It is extraordinary we do not already have a national plan in place with only three years to go until the end of the programme. Does the Minister agree there is a need to establish a national council for incareer development?
I am surprised the Deputy has come to the House on behalf of the partners to tell me they are concerned, because I have a committee in place on which those partners are represented. They have a forum in which to make these remarks.
The priorities for the expenditure of this money were clearly spelled out in the White Paper. The money was to be used for curricular changes; the development of the junior cycle; the radical restructuring of the senior cycle; to enable teachers to assist students with learning difficulties; management programmes for principals, middle management and boards of management; initiatives to provide for the professional development of teachers; programmes for parents; gender equality course modules and programmes in creative and performing arts, and science and technological subjects. Those are the headings under which we are operating.
The White Paper also put in place the structural framework. It made the point we would devolve and decentralise where these decisions are taken as much as possible. We see the new education boards as having a central role in ensuring the needs of the regions are met.
They will not be established before 1999.
The network of education centres is being expanded. They have a key role to play in planning the spending and investment of this money. The incareer development unit has been set up in the Department since the publication of the White Paper.
Where partners are invited to participate on committees in the Department, I would prefer to hear from them that they consider it a smokescreen, rather than from the Deputy on their behalf.
The Minister does not consult with people; that is the problem.
There is a £9 million investment in incareer services. Never before has a Minister for Education been able to provide investment for teachers already in the system.
Europe is helping us.
This is considered a very good and positive investment by those who speak to me on behalf of the partners. If there is concern that we are not investing this money wisely, there is already a forum within the Department of Education for the primary and post-primary sectors and I would greatly welcome their criticisms. The framework document for this massive investment is before the committees and those remarks should be made at those committees.
This is a massive amount of money. We are two years down the road and we do not have a national policy for it. Does the Minister think it smacks of ad hoc management to tell us that a national plan is being put together two years later? We have to submit a national plan to spend money in every other sphere to see where we will get value for money. We talk about change in industry and technology but the same is true of the education sector. It is a bit much for the Minister to say these groups will come together and we will probably have a plan sometime this year.
We must proceed by way of questions, Deputy.
Is it not correct for those in the business to be quite critical of the way in which the Minister and her Department have handled this massive sum of money, which could be used very effectively and efficiently in upgrading primary and secondary teachers' skills?
I refer the Deputy to the White Paper, which I presume he has read. I have already spelled out the headings under which this investment is being made and I do not have to repeat them now.
That is not a detailed plan.
We are very clear about the programme's priorities and the inservice structural framework.
The Minister is high on aspiration and low on action.
The partners involved in this are ready to put the framework in place. I am satisfied the framework being put in place has been very well considered by the partners and, I have no doubt, will meet the approval of the House.
When will we have the framework? We have had some film flam on this and we need more precision. This is part of the difficulty people have with this subject. Can the Minister give us a precise date?
I will convey to the Department the Deputy's request for a specific date.
That is ridiculous.
I was pleased to be able to spell out the structure and priorities to the Deputies and to indicate that the framework document is before those committees. When they have completed their work, they will come forward with the inservice provision and allocation of funds, which will have been decided in partnership with those involved in education.
When will Brussels get a look at all this?
This is a circus.
Other Deputies are offering and I want to move on to other questions.
It is incredible that the Minister does not seem to know what is going on in the Department.
That is why it is going down the tubes.
Why can she not give a simple answer to a simple question, which seems obvious to me from the points which have already been raised and the question on the Order Paper? It is incredible the Minister cannot be more precise.
It is not a simple matter with a simple answer. It is a matter to which we have given a great deal of thought and it involves significant funds. I took the trouble to involve the partners and we are now completing that process which I will bring back to the House.
When?
We all realise now that the Department of Education must be on auto pilot because nobody seems to know about or want to be responsible for anything. How much money has been allocated to the primary and secondary sectors and to the parents? What guidelines are being used by the Department at the moment for the allocation of that funding? Is anyone responsible for assessing the expenditure of this money and is the Minister happy that it is being properly spent? Further, what contingency plans are there for the development of incareer work over the next few years, given that the operational programme will have ended by 1999? Such plans should have been copper-fastened two years ago before funding was made available.
The programme priorities are very well set out and the structural framework is in place. The Deputy asked a specific question on which I do not have the information. The information I have is in relation to a question about the strategy being adopted. I can say that £9 million will be spent in 1995. The partners involved with us in the investment of this funding, the teaching profession, managers and parents are more than satisfied that at last they have access to funding.
I share the Deputy's concern about what will happen when we complete this investment. For that reason it is important to have access to the network of education centres that we previously referred to as the teacher centres. The centres generate some funding for themselves but also now involve themselves more and more in in-career investment by the Department. The allocation towards the running costs of the centres was £.5 million of the £9 million. I will come back to the Deputy with specific monetary answers to the questions about the different sectors. There is investment in primary and second level education, for teachers, managerial programmes and parents. They are the headings under which this investment is being made by a special unit in the Department which was set up to ensure that we are getting the best return. The partners involved in this are satisfied with the excellent work, the forward planning and the vision from the in-career development unit in the Department.
The Minister has outlined four major areas at which inservice funding will be targeted. There is an absence of any allocation of money to the administrative wing of the Department. Perhaps the committee will give consideration to the allocation of some of this funding to the introduction of new systems in the Department of Education and the training of officials and people in the Department of Education to ensure a more modernised delivery of the education programme, particularly in terms of the operation and organisation of the examination system. Today we again witnessed an appalling mistake in the context of engineering work being found near a bog in County Roscommon. That has undermined the integrity of the entire examination system.
Let us not get into specifics.
It is relevant to this question in so far as it is clear that as we await the publication of the Price Waterhouse report on the art examination we will now have another investigation into a farcical situation relating to the 1996 examination. The Minister should come before this House and answer questions on those issues. She has been here for an hour and 20 minutes on a day when engineering work was discovered in a bog in County Roscommon, and we cannot ask questions about it.
This is not the time for discussion. I am calling on the Minister to respond.
It is a disgrace that the Minister will not voluntarily agree to answer questions on this issue.
The Deputy is out of order.
Decisions about whether that is tabled in the Dáil are not mine. Perhaps the Deputy would like to know that the matter will probably feature on the Adjournment debate and I will be here to deal with it.
The Adjournment does not facilitate questions, as the Minister knows.
Let me come back to the question that was asked.
The Minister has not answered the question.
These are matters for the Chair.
I want order for the speaker in possession. I will ask Deputy Martin one more time to desist.
I apologise, but I think the Chair will agree it is frustrating that we can listen to an interviewer asking the Minister questions on radio but we cannot ask questions in this House.
The Garda Síochána are asking questions.
I am moving on to Question No. 24 in the name of Deputy Timmins.
The Minister of State made a statement in regard to the Garda Síochána, which should be clarified.
