asked the Minister for Education if she will increase the number of remedial teachers at primary level in 1988 in view of the larger class size announced by her on 22 October; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Primary Level Remedial Teaching.
9.
Some but not all classes will be larger as a result of the revised pupil/teacher ratios. However, there is no direct correlation between class size and the need of particular children for remedial education. Remedial teaching posts have always been allocated in accordance with priority of need and not in accordance with pupil/teacher ratios.
As some remedial posts were allocated many years ago and there is the possibility that the same need may not now exist where they were originally allocated, I am having the deployment of the remedial posts reviewed so as to ensure that the services of remedial teachers are available where most needed.
It is not my intention to reduce the number of remedial posts. In order to assist in getting the maximum advantage from the considerable number of remedial posts already allocated I intend shortly to make available guidelines on remedial education.
Does the Minister of State believe that weaker students in primary schools will not suffer from being in larger classes?
It is inevitable that larger classes will render the situation more difficult; nobody would wish to deny that. However, my Department, and in particular the Minister herself, is anxious to ensure that, where there is a larger class, where there is an increase in the need for remedial teachers, that position will be examined. It is very difficult to generalise. That is what we are attempting not to do. We will certainly examine closely any particular school or any area where it is evident that there is an increased need for additional remedial teaching.
How has the Minister of State come to the policy conclusion that there is an exact equivalence between the need for remedial teachers arising in the future and those that are no longer required because the need disappeared in the past? If one interprets his remarks one finds he is saying that there will be no new remedial teachers, in addition, appointed and that effectively the appointment of any new remedial teacher will have to be balanced by the loss of a remedial teacher where his Department suggest the need no longer exists.
In the first instance we are guided by the overall financial constraints placed on us. Let Deputy M. Higgins be in no doubt about that. Therefore this factor is one which must be considered carefully. That is not to say that the whole area of remedial teaching cannot be assessed to ensure that the quota of remedial teachers we have is used or deployed in the best possible way. It is with that in mind that we will shortly be issuing new guidelines on remedial education.
To get this clear——
A brief question, please, Deputy Higgins, There are a number of other Deputies seeking to get in and I want to facilitate them.
I take it the Minister of State is speaking, then, of the redeployment of remedial teachers which will involve the withdrawal of remedial teachers from areas where his Department believe they are no longer needed and sending them to other areas but that there will be no new remedial teachers appointed. Is this what the Minister of State is stating?
There are constraints on us with regard to the appointment of new teachers. But let me add that almost everything Deputy M. Higgins says when he stands up here involves or advocates new expenditure of moneys. I often wonder from where does Deputy Higgins expect the money to emanate?
That is rich coming from the Minister of State.
If the Minister of State had listened to my remarks on the Estimates debate——
Deputy M. Higgins should come down to reality because the same questions were posed on the last occasion we were here at Question Time. Unless the Deputy looks realistically at the present situation——
That is a very cheap evasion of the need for remedial teachers.
Why did the Minister of State not say that last year? He should remember that he called then for more teachers.
We would love to appoint more teachers and more remedial teachers. The fact of the matter is that there are financial restraints on us. We have spelled them out clearly to this House and we are going to stick by them.
The Minister herself said here recently that half of the 3,300 national schools would have bigger classes. Does the fact that half of the schools in the country will be catering for bigger classes mean that there will be flexibility in the pay estimates? Can there be any extra remedial teachers employed in 1988? If some of the approximately 1,200 schools appear to encounter difficulties will there be any flexibility in the pay vote? Can there be one extra remedial teacher appointed?
I did not say that half of the classes——
The Minister herself said it.
I said less than half.
The number of classes that will be affected by the change in the pupil/teacher ratio is not clear at present. Obviously, only when the exercise is operative will we be able clearly to identify the numbers of classes affected. In like manner it is not possible for me to say at this point that no one extra remedial teacher can be appointed.
So there will be flexibility, then?
Within the financial constraints on us we will monitor the position closely. If sufficient finances are available to appoint new teachers that will be considered.
In the light of what the Minister of State has just said, what yardstick, if any, will be applied other than the financial one to determine how many remedial teachers will be needed in the school year ahead or how much more remedial teaching will be provided in any classroom in the year ahead? Has he taken into consideration the Minister's reply to the first question, that we have at this stage of our development no record at all of how many people leave school every year illiterate or partially illiterate? Will that be a determining factor or will the whole matter be measured merely in pounds, shillings and pence?
This area is being assessed at present and we will shortly be making available new guidelines on remedial education. But I must spell out clearly that, yes, the financial position constitutes one very important factor, though not the only one.
It is the only one.
It is not at all the only one but it is a very basic one nonetheless——
How soon will we hear of another one?
The Deputy's party was initiated on the basis that it was the only one.
More wisdom and less wit would serve the country better.
Does the Minister of State accept that, because of the increase in class sizes, there will be a deterioration in the degree of attention a teacher will be able to give to weaker students in his or her class and that, therefore, the likelihood is that in a year or two remedial teachers — where already appointed — will have to undertake an increasing workload? Does he not accept that it would be much better at this stage to retain at least the present pupil/teacher ratio and not allow it to deteriorate in the way he and the Minister are proposing at present?
Anybody in the teaching profession, including the Minister and I, accept that an increase in class size will inevitably mean some decrease in the level of attention to all students, weaker students included. But the House would not want to believe that there will be a major upheaval. The increase, in practical terms, in the classes affected may be as small as two or three additional pupils per class. That is not to say that there will be other classes depending on the numbers where the increase will be quite significant. The Minister and I are satisfied that there will not be a major reduction in the quality of teaching to our children as a result of this change.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 10.