Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 1975

Vol. 280 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate: Untrained Teachers.

Mr. Lalor

At Question Time today I asked the Minister for Education the following question:

The number of untrained teachers at present teaching in national schools who have received notice of termination of services from his Department from 30th June next; why this notice was issued at this time; and if he will consider their appeal for a further crash training course to enable many of them to qualify as trained teachers.

The Minister's reply was as follows:

In March of this year notice issued from my Department to 238 unqualified persons who are serving temporarily as teachers in national schools that their employment would be terminated not later than 30th June, 1975 since the number of qualified newly-trained teachers who will be available as from 1st June, 1975, will be sufficient to allow of all teaching posts in national schools being filled by qualified teachers. It should be understood that each person concerned, being unqualified, was recognised temporarily only until such time as the school manager succeeded in obtaining the services of a qualified teacher and that the circumstances of their being so recognised conferred no right to continued recognition or to future recognition as teacher.

Special summer courses of training have been provided for some years past for qualified untrained teachers, but persons who were not already qualified as untrained teachers were not accepted on these courses. which have now come to an end. There could be no question of instituting a special course to enable persons not already qualified as national teachers to obtain trained status. Such persons, however, would be eligible to enter as mature students for the annual competition for admission to the normal course of training as national teacher, provided they satisfied the requirements as to age and standard of education.

This sudden withdrawal of recognition was a very harsh decision, especially as many of the people concerned have given long years of devoted service. Quite a considerable number were never in any other employment and they do not know where to turn when their employment is terminated. Many have proved to have exceptional ability as teachers and this has been recognised by the parents and the teaching staff. It was only the lack of academic qualifications that prevented such people from becoming trained teachers. The Minister has said that persons would be eligible to enter as mature students for the annual competition for admission to the training course provided they could satisfy the necessary requirements as to age and standard of education but this is little consolation when many of the people concerned have not the necessary qualifications.

The lack of necessary qualifications in no way diminishes the ability of these people to teach and the fact that they have spent so many years teaching shows their love for their profession and for the children in their care. It also shows their dedication to their jobs. Unfortunately most of these people are not organised. If they were the Minister would not take the action he now proposes. Does he think any other group of workers would react to this kind of summary dismissal without protest, or even violent protest? It is only because the Minister is dealing with unfortunate individuals without any union support that he thinks he can take this action.

By adopting this course of action the Minister is ensuring that there will not be any improvement in the pupil/teacher ratio next year—in fact, there will be a severe deterioration in the ratio after June. He has told us that he proposes to fill the vacancies with the appointment of teachers who come out of training this year. What he should do with this sizeable group is to fill the normal vacancies with some of the teachers and use the remainder to achieve a much-needed reduction in the pupil/teacher ratio.

In reply to parliamentary questions in this House, the Minister admitted that there are many classes with more than 50 pupils. This is disgraceful. It was to create a new situation where there would be much smaller classes that the Government of which I was a member and the former Minister for Education, Deputy Faulkner, ensured that more teachers were trained than were needed for normal replacements. Until this year they were used to reduce the high pupil/ teacher ratio but the present Minister apparently will discontinue that practice. To aggravate the situation, there will be no new teachers coming out of training next year because of the three-year course. What is the Minister going to do? It is most unlikely that teachers over 65 will return when they have been kicked out this year.

The number of teachers in training in the coming years will be much smaller than this year. This is deliberate policy on the part of the Government. They want totally to reverse the Fianna Fáil policy of reducing the pupil/teacher ratio and this is one of the reasons I raised the matter on the Adjournment. The Minister for Education has been gloating and boasting about his achievements in the last two years and has told us that he achieved a reduction in the pupil/teacher ratio. He did this because of the legacy left to him by the former Minister for Education, Deputy Faulkner.

The Minister should have used the 1,100 new teachers this year in a positive attempt to reduce the numbers in classes. Instead, he has thrown the 238 untrained teachers to the wolves. Even though they have given loyal service, some of them for as long as 25 years, they are now being thrown on the scrap-heap. The pupils of these people, and the pupils' parents have been so pleased with them that they have resisted many efforts by managers and the Department of Education to remove them. Those people served education when they were greatly needed and now the Minister for Education is, as from 30th June, throwing them on the scrap-heap. It is disgraceful. My purpose in raising this on the Adjournment was to give myself an opportunity of again appealing to the Minister to find a formula for introducing a crash course. There are two other Deputies anxious to contribute so I would like to give way to them.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

First of all, I should like to say that I agree totally with the policy of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation of having only trained teachers serving in the national schools of the country. I would like to thank the previous Minister for Education for introducing the crash training courses a few years ago for the many untrained teachers throughout the country to enable them to get their qualifications.

The 238 teachers that the Minister for Education talked about today are untrained teachers who could not avail of those crash courses because in many cases of the age limit imposed. Those teachers are people with long service, a service which has proved efficient and satisfactory to the children's parents, to the managers of the national schools and to the Departmental inspectors. It can be argued that those teachers are doing the same job as trained teachers. It has now become a way of life with them, and quite naturally they are distressed at present lest their services should be shelved.

Let me ask the Minister where do those 238 teachers go now? They are not like workers in industry who can be retrained. I wonder if they would qualify for pay-related benefits or redundancy payments. Do they even qualify for unemployment assistance? One of the conditions to qualify for unemployment assistance is that a person must be available for work, but if the Minister is taking away their only form of work how can those teachers be available for work? Have the Minister or his Departmental officials studied this matter and, if so, what can they offer to those teachers now that they are faced with the problem of unemployment and do not qualify for any pension after their many years of devoted service to the Irish community? Is it fair that all of the other untrained teachers had a chance to avail of the crash training courses but that those 238 teachers are being discriminated against? Let me remind the Minister that the vast majority of those untrained teachers are women and one might ask, with some justification, if it may be for that reason that they are being discriminated against now.

The Minister said here this afternoon that the reason for his decision was that he had to make room for the 1,100 new teachers coming out of training colleges this summer. The Minister knows as well as I do that the reason for the increase in the intake of students to those colleges in the last two years was the appalling pupil/ teacher ratio in all our national schools. As a national school teacher myself, I know only too well the problems of teachers when they are faced with large overcrowded classes. We welcomed the proposal of the previous Minister for Education, Deputy Pádraig Faulkner, to increase the intake of student teachers to ease this overcrowding. Naturally all teachers would welcome any proposal that would alleviate the pressure on pupils. One way of alleviating this enormous pressure is by reducing class sizes. How can the Minister say he will reduce the pupil-teacher ratio if he takes away 238 teachers at present employed in our schools? He is giving lip service to this proposal. Does the Minister allow for the huge intake of 4-year old pupils in schools next July and the freedom that pupils must have now since the new curriculum was introduced? How can the Minister reconcile this freedom with the ridiculous pupil-teacher ratio prevailing at the moment? Teachers at present find they cannot possibly give this freedom of experiment to their pupils when they are faced with huge classes.

This announcement by the Minister has come at a most inopportune time, a time when teachers were feeling that at last they had a chance of getting the pupil-teacher ratio into proportion, with the extra amount of new teachers available in July. If the Minister now takes 238 teachers out of service, not to mention the number of teachers on extension who must go as well, the number of teachers available in July will be reduced from 1,100 to 862 teachers.

In view of those special circumstances would the Minister not reconsider his decision to terminate the employment of those untrained teachers, and would he not be prepared instead to offer them a further crash training course to enable many or all of them to qualify as trained teachers?

Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an Teachta Pádraig Ó Leathlobhair sa mhéid atá ráite aige faoin gceist seo agus impim ar an Aire ath-breithníu a dhéanamh ar an scéal.

Mr. Power

I speak here tonight as a Member of this House and as a member of the INTO, and while we are all agreed that it is an excellent idea that we should have enough trained teachers to go around I think we should apply ourselves in a realistic way to this situation. Our party has pursued this policy and the solution, of course, is that we should stop the entry of further untrained teachers into the teaching ranks—that will eventually solve the problem—but I do not agree at all that the Minister should adopt the tactics he is adopting with regard to those untrained teachers who are still in employment. The solution for those is that we should provide training for them.

We have many wonderful, dedicated people. They are untrained people but dedicated for all that, and the many years they have spent in teaching prove their dedication because it surely was not financial considerations that brought them there. It is wrong of anyone to suggest that they should be thrown out now and discarded. The Minister should realise that one of the subjects that is dynamite in the educational world at present is the pupil-teacher ratio. It was indeed unfortunate that he did not find it convenient on this occasion to be present at the INTO Congress in Tramore where this was a great bone of contention. If the Minister had attended that congress he would realise that in the two years since he has become Minister the adulation he got at the Wexford Congress when he first appeared on the scene has diminished, that his TAM rating has now diminished very much indeed.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Hear, hear.

Mr. Power

I believe that on that occasion he was in a position to bask in the reflected glory of the solid, sterling work of his predecessor. He should remember that all over the country parents are worried. I attended a meeting only this week where people were worried that 56 of their children in the infant class should be herded into one room and given to the care of the teacher and 52 in another class in the same school. The Minister is there creating the need for the remedial teachers he will have later on. This action of the Minister will aggravate this situation. He is giving no extension after 65. He is not allowing English teachers in. He is throwing out 238 teachers who are now prepared to teach and by doing that he is creating a problem that will take a long time to solve.

To be personal for a moment, I would ask him to reflect on my own position. I am here and I may be gone tomorrow for all we know. I had to put a substitute in my place. I was lucky enough to get a trained teacher for three years. I gave him what financial considerations I could but he was denied pension right and incremental right and that is a position that could not last indefinitely. Thank God he was made a permanent teacher in the school. How am I to get a trained teacher? What trained teacher will come and act as a substitute for me and what incentive does the Minister propose to give? I have, at the moment, an excellent untrained teacher, a woman whom the pupils and the parents love. She is a Gaelgeoir ar fheabhas. I believe it would be a terrible thing if because of a ruling by the Minister I have to tell her: "After the last day of June you go and if we want you again we will look for you. If we can get a trained teacher well and good. The Minister says there is a sufficient number to go around. I doubt that, but I hope you will wait on the sideline until we see whether we really need you." This is a callous action by the Minister We need all the help we can get in our national schools. Apart from that, there is no point in adding a further 230 people to the thousands already unemployed. What does the Minister think will happen to those people? Will they be sent to AnCO for training in some other field? All he need do is establish one further training crash course for them. This is the solution that should be adopted. Let the Minister put his pride in his pocket and allow people who have proved their dedication to continue teaching.

Minister for Education (Mr. R. Burke)

The question of a crash course has no relevance to a solution of the situation arising on 1st July next. The action to be taken at that date is related to finding employment for the new teachers from the training colleges. Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn spoke of crash courses which were provided up to now. She is mistaken if she thinks that these were provided for the type of teacher numbered in our 238 of today. These crash courses were provided for permanent, qualified, if untrained teachers. There is no valid basis for a crash course for unqualified persons whose services were accepted exceptionally and for limited periods of time.

I do not wish to follow some of the Deputies in the rather emotive language they used, in their boasting and gloating and talking of casting on the scrap-heap and so on. As for Deputy Power, perhaps he, as a member of that organisation of teachers, will be glad to know that I have had a message from them recently expressing their gratitude for the fact that for the first time ever they have achieved the position of degrees, having waited more than 100 years for certification as university graduates.

Mr. Power

Courtesy has always been the hallmark of the profession.

Mr. R. Burke

Perhaps it was the announcement in Wexford of that change which led to the adulation the Deputy speaks of. What is in question here is not the recognition of untrained teachers but the granting of full recognition to persons who never qualified in any capacity as national teachers but who have been recognised to be exceptionally and temporarily in posts for which managers failed to get qualified teachers. The persons concerned were never left in any doubt as to the temporary nature of their appointments. I should have thought that a number of the speakers opposite who were in the profession would have made reference to that. In all instances the appointments were approved until such time as the school manager succeeded in getting a qualified teacher for the post. The manager was requested at regular intervals, and always towards the end of each school year, to renew his efforts to get a qualified teacher, and when he reported failure in that regard the recognition of the unqualified teacher was renewed specifically on a temporary basis.

The situation has been reached this year when the number of newly-trained teachers who will be available at July 1st will be such that qualified teachers will be available for all teaching posts in national schools. There can be no good reason, therefore, for retaining unqualified teachers. To do so we would be denying job opportunities to those young people who will have completed their training course this year.

There are two aspects to the question which I, as the Minister responsible, cannot ignore. First, it is wrong, when qualified teaching personnel are available, that persons not qualified should be employed as teachers in our schools. Secondly, there is at least an implied commitment on the part of the State to afford reasonable opportunities of employment to persons selected for training on the basis of State examinations.

It has been suggested that the unqualified teachers concerned be given an opportunity of qualifying by means of brief crash training courses. To put it bluntly, this is a suggestion that the standard of qualification for the teaching profession be diluted. In 1958 it was decided that the recruitment of untrained national teachers, known as junior assistant mistresses, be discontinued. In 1966 it was decided to organise special crash courses to give trained status to qualified untrained teachers who, at that time, were not more than 56 years of age. These crash courses have been discontinued. The final group of former untrained teachers will have completed their training in July next. It must be emphasised that no person who had not qualified as an untrained teacher was accepted on these courses, the objective of which was to establish that the primary teaching profession would consist entirely of trained teachers. There can be no question of giving special facilities to unqualified persons to attain the status of trained teachers.

We heard from some Deputies opposite about reducing the teacher/ pupil ratio. While this question has not much relevance to this debate, I would remind the House that there was no improvement in this regard between July, 1969 and July, 1973. Some improvement was effected in 1973 and again in 1974. Perhaps I might explain in more detail why it has become necessary to discontinue accepting the services of unqualified teachers The number of trainee teachers accepted into our training colleges in 1973—the last group whose training period is only two years—was far higher than ever before. On July 1 this year there will will be 1,100 newly-trained teachers available. With a normal annual figure of 640 posts arising as a result of retirements, wastage and increases in enrolments, the prospect existed of some 460 of these young people being without opportunities of employment in the profession for which they had been prepared unless special steps were taken to avoid this. It is easy to see that the problem could be solved by reducing the pupil/teacher ratio and appointing additional special teachers for remedial and other work. Nobody recognises more than I the desirability of such improvements in our education system at primary level and no one is more conscious or anxious to achieve such improvements. However, one must be realistic and must acknowledge cold economic facts in an era when an economic crisis is threatening all countries. In present circumstances it is not possible to reduce further this year the pupil/teacher ratio in primary schools or to create additional teaching posts for remedial or other special work. As I have said, since becoming Minister I have improved the pupil/ teacher ratio on two occasions and on each occasion I have added to the number of appointments of remedial teachers. If, this year, we must forego improvements in this direction, it is not because of any lack of will on my part but because of grave financial considerations and because of the heavy demands from other parts of the education system which make this inevitable.

Mr. Wilson

Gloom and doom.

Mr. R. Burke

I did not interrupt the Deputies opposite. How, then, do we ensure that newly-trained teachers will have opportunities of employment from the commencement of the coming school year? There will be the 640 vacancies I have mentioned and in addition there will be the 240 posts filled at present by unqualified persons because of the unavailability up to now of qualified and trained teachers. Also, there will be the posts which, in former years, would be filled by people who had reached retirement age and who, as a concession, have been allowed to continue in the service for one, two or three years. I regret that the measures which have had to be taken will give rise to disappointment in many instances and even to a degree of hardship in some cases, but the choice for me was clear. For the reasons which I have given I considered it my duty to take such appropriate action as would allow the newly trained teachers from the colleges of education to take up the employment for which they had been qualified over a previous number of years.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 30th April, 1975.