Vol. 419 No. 7
6 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Education if he is satisfied that adequate back-up will be made available to national school teachers if official assessment of pupils is introduced in view of the fact that such teachers have, over the years, assessed pupils in their classes and have not had any extra assistance in helping the known weaker children.
It is part of the role of teachers in national schools to monitor the ongoing progress of pupils and to endeavour to assist in the development of weaker children. As part of the proposals in the Green Paper it is suggested that standardised tests be made available so that class teachers can more readily and accurately identify the precise levels of attainments of individual pupils.
It is not true to suggest that no extra assistance has been available to help the known weaker children. Apart from the available expertise of the immediate class teacher, the remedial teaching service provides back-up support for children experiencing learning difficulties. Under the new arrangements priorities for additional resources will be more readily identified and I am confident that they will be made available.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): May I ask the Minister what will be the advantage of having an official assessment? Almost every primary teacher in the country knows how far behind pupils are but the difficulty arises when there are too many of these pupils in a class. I am not saying that there are no remedial teachers in the country but I would ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that there is a sufficient number of remedial teachers. Perhaps this measure is another red herring to satisfy parents that there are certain standards in primary schools. I do not see the point in these assessments considering that one can find out from any teacher in any classroom what the standards are, and they will be mixed in every classroom. If there is no logical reason for the assessment its introduction will only cause problems.
Of course one can find out the position from any teacher in any classroom, but my proposal is to find it out not by folklore, by anecdotes or by rumour; I need to find it out more formally so that I can target resources in a formal way to where they are needed. More than 40 per cent or primary schools in the State have remedial teachers.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): But 60 per cent have no remedial teachers.
The Deputy is good at sums. There are 945 remedial teachers covering 1,400 primary schools. I agree that more of these teachers are needed but I am satisfied that they are doing what needs to be done as best they can. In regard to the assessments proposed in the introduction to the Green Paper, which will be spelled out in the Green Paper proper, I suggest assessments at age seven, 11 and 15. These are not exams and they are not a reintroduction of the primary certificate by the back door. They are purely diagnostic and are a form of educational screening. It is not sensible that children who start school at four years of age proceed until they are 15 without any formal assessment of how they are getting on. I feel strongly that my proposal in the Green Paper should be fully discussed and considered calmly for the sake of the children involved because at the end of the day they are the important people.
I would ask Deputy Browne to be brief. I am very unhappy about the lack of progress at questions today. Let us try to expedite matters.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I can assess pupils very calmly as can every teacher, not through anecdotes but through tests which were carried out long before any Minister decided that they were important. If the Minister does not appoint more remedial teachers or introduce back-up services or smaller classes he will be putting the cart before the horse. He is trying to find an official answer while the answer was always there but nothing was done about it.
Questions, please.
If these questions succeed, our successors will not be able to understand us but they will be able to speak continental languages.
Arising from the Minister's reply, is it not the case that in the 60 per cent of schools which have no remedial teachers the assessment will be a complete waste of time?
No, because the figure of 40 per cent represents only the present achievement. I will have much more accurate knowledge as to where I need to direct resources. It is simply a means of identifying the problem. If resources were not limited, the right thing to do would be to present every child and every school with the service. Resources are limited and I have to target the remedial teaching facility where it is most needed. Official assessments will help me to do that.
Will the Minister accept that there are already in primary schools formal systems of assessing pupils? In what way will his proposals differ? What is the rationale for the ages at which the children are to be tested at primary school, that is, the ages of seven and 11? Why are the ages proposed in the Green Paper precisely the same as those which have been introduced in the educationally backward policies of the British Government, although the age of school leaving is quite different there?
I have said on many platforms in recent weeks that these are proposals for debate. If the Deputy has other ages in mind and other evidence to supply, I will take that into account. I am not stuck with those ages.
Why did the Minister pick those ones?
Because it is my duty to put forward proposals. I selected those ages because they are sufficiently wide apart.
They are the same as in the UK.
It is generally acknowledged that seven is the age at which one should assess how a child is getting on. The age of 15 is coming up to the junior certificate and that is also a good time to assess. The age of 11 is in between.
The school leaving age at primary level is 12.
If the Deputy feels strongly about 12, I will consider it.
How can the Minister ensure uniformity in this official national assessment without committing large resources? If the results of these tests are to have any relevance or meaning in the national context there must be uniformity in their application. There are many tests available to teachers nowadays. The diagnosis is not the problem. The problem is lack of resources to deal with the difficulties identified in these tests. Other tests are being widely applied and information is available in schools. Why is the Minister introducing these tests and how can he ensure uniformity without committing large resources which could be better employed elsewhere?
There will always be a problem of resources in education. No Minister for Education will ever have the resources that he or she needs to do everything that would be wished. It is incumbent on any Minister for Education and any Government to target resources where they are most urgently needed. I do not believe it is good educational policy to allow a gap of 11 years between the ages of four and 15 without any formal assessment of how pupils are getting on. I will be very interested in the formal response from the spokesmen on education about this concept. If they are against it I should like to hear it said loudly and clearly. For my part I do not want 11 years to elapse without some form of formalised assessment, which is not an examination. It will involve teachers doing work they already do but in a formal rather than an informal way. I am prepared to stand over my view and I should dearly like to hear the views of the educational spokesmen from other parties on that aspect of my proposal.
