Vol. 465 No. 3
18 Mr. Martin asked the Minister for Education when the proposed relationships and sexuality programme will be introduced to primary and post-primary schools; the cost of introducing this programme; and the number of school days that will be used in respect of inservice training in the 1995/1996 and the 1996 /1997 academic years. [9772/96]
56 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Education whether she has considered the implications of the report of the Expert Advisory Group on Relationships and Sexuality Education which was published in July 1994; and the action, if any, she intends to take in respect of this matter. [9572/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 56 together.
Many schools already provide programmes in relationships and sexuality education in their curricula. It is intended that all primary and post-primary schools will have agreed school policies and suitable programmes in RSE in place during the school year 1996-97.
The major cost attached to introducing RSE relates to the provision of in-service training and support programmes. In the current school year it is estimated that the inservice programme will cost about £500,000. The in-service programme for the 1996-97 school year, including costings, is being finalised.
All primary teachers are being provided with one day's inservice training in the current school year. An additional two days' training will be provided for all primary teachers during the 1996-97 school year.
In the case of post-primary schools, special seminars for principals and viceprincipals will commence shortly. In addition, two two-day training sessions will be provided for post-primary teachers who have already received training in the area of pupil self esteem and relationships under the substance abuse prevention programme.
The training programme for teachers was agreed and recommended by the special implementation group for RSE which I set up in 1995. This group is representative of the partners in education, including parent, teacher and management representatives. The group continues to monitor all aspects of the implementation of RSE. The details of when and how training takes place are agreed in advance with the partners.
I am disappointed the Minister cannot be more transparent and specific in her reply. It seems extraordinary that the Minister is not in a position to estimate accurately the cost of the in-service programme for the introduction of relationships and sexuality education. Will the Minister confirm the view conveyed to me by the partners in education that it will be September 1997 before the programme is introduced in primary schools? Will she further confirm whether children attending primary schools will lose three school days — one this year and two in the 1996-97 academic year — as a result of the in-service training provision outlined by the Minister?
I am surprised to hear the Deputy say the partners in education conveyed to him their belief that this programme will not be put in place.
That is a fact.
The partners in education have a forum in the Department of Education, namely, the implementation group which I established to ensure that together we can see this very necessary programme in place in the 1996-97 school year. The days of in-service, are agreed with the partners in education. I had hoped to have this programme in place earlier than the 1996-97 school year but the partners conveyed to me the wishes of the teachers, particularly those in schools which do not have the programme, to involve themselves in in-career training for this new initiative. The primary school teachers have already commenced training and early reports suggest that the teachers involved were pleased with the preparation and the commitment to give time to this training to ensure we get it right for the students. That is a commitment to which all the partners subscribe.
Will the Minister confirm that two days will be lost in the next academic year as a result of the in-service training?
Further training is promised in 1996-97 but I would not describe that as "days lost".
Students will not be at school.
The education activity required is not something that can be described as "days lost".
Many of the teachers involved in this training have not been involved in relationships and sexuality education in the schools, and we must not forget that much of this education is already being given. Concern was expressed earlier, that we must put quality in-carrer training in place with agreement on all sides. This approach has been agreed.
Let us come to Question No. 19.
May I ask a final question?
There is a time factor involved and it is reaching a stage whereby if I do not call Question No. 19 in the name of Deputy Keogh, it cannot be called.
I will be very brief. The Minister introduced a time of school circular and made a big song and dance about the integrity of the school year. I simply want to know whether children will be at school on the days when the in-service training takes place. I accept the need for in-service training but I merely want confirmation that children will not be at school on those days and, on that basis, perhaps the Minister might reflect on her policy initiative in terms of the time of school circular. This makes a mockery of the Minister's original position.
This programme is needed and must be successful. In the current school year, primary teachers have already started training. We expect that days will be given to in-service training for this programme but that is being done in full agreement with the partners in education. I look forward to the programme being implemented in the schools that have not yet implemented it and if we must take time to do that, it is time worth taking.
