Micheál Martin
Question:21 Mr. Martin asked the Minister for Education the plans, if any, she has to withdraw the time in school circular circulated in 1995. [9773/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Time in School Circular.
I have no plans to withdraw the time in school circular. The Deputy will be aware that the proposals which were put to the teachers unions following the negotiations under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work provided for an agreed circular. It was intended that this circular would deal with the proposed arrangements relating to flexibility and change. It was also indicated that in the preparation of that agreed circular the opportunity would be taken by the Department, the managers and the teachers to consider any difficulties arising for schools from the operation of the time in school circular.
My Department will shortly initiate a process of consultation with the various interests with a view to reviewing the operational aspects of the time in school circular.
Does the Minister agree that the introduction last year of the time in school circular and the hints from the Department and the Minister prior to its publication poisoned the industrial relations atmosphere in education and soured relationships with the teaching community and teachers generally? There was a clear implication that up to the introduction of the circular teachers were not putting in the required hours — I know that is how teachers read it, having consulted the unions and teachers. In that context, does she not feel it appropriate to withdraw the circular?
An earlier reply, in connection with the introduction of in-service training for various programmes, revealed that the Minister may invoke rule 60 — which means children will lose school days — when she sees fit. I understand the reason that must be done from time to time and I accept the need for flexibility but it is hypocritical of the Minister to take action on certain programmes while simultaneously pressing home the time in school circular.
Perhaps it was hinted at for a long time — as far back as the publication of the Green Paper on Education in June 1992, this matter was dealt with in some detail. The White Paper on Education, Charting our Education Future, published in April 1995, clearly stated the circular would be issued and was quite specific about its content, referring to 183 days for primary schools and 167 for secondary schools. As to the Deputy's criticism, the circular did not extend the school week and it was open to schools to devise their own timetables once they met the 28 hour requirement. The circular specifically stated that they did not pre-empt the outcome of further negotiations under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. Issues were raised so the Department put in place a helpline and I believe it showed a flexible response to schools which had difficulties. The time in school circular defined time in school.
Whatever the Minister's motivation for introducing the circular, it poisoned the industrial relations atmosphere in education. Many school principals have told me they depend on their teachers to give extra hours over weekends and after school or to deliver extra-curricular activities in programmes in drama, sport, debating, etc.
A question please, Deputy.
If teachers were not in a position to or did not voluntarily give extra hours, the capacity of schools to provide a comprehensive programme would be greatly reduced. The Minister's concentration on this bureaucratic circular and the 15 extra hours included in the negotiated package has done great harm to the system and was a crucial factor in teachers' rejection of the pay package put before them. There is need for a radical review of the direction taken by the Minister and her Department on this matter, because this parsimonious approach will mean we will ultimately end up with a system where teachers do no more than count hours and minutes.
To re-affirm the point, the time in school circular defined time in school, which is 183 days at primary level and 167 days at second level. It also defined the length of the school day and of the half day and addressed the issue of unforeseen closures. The Department issued the circular, which did not increase the hours in school. As some difficulties seem to have arisen, more at second level than at primary level, we put in place a help line and showed flexibility and willingness to respond to difficulties. The question asked whether I intended to withdraw the circular; I have no plans to do so but I will initiate a process of consultation with the various interests, including parents, managers and teachers, to review the operation of the scheme. The definition for how long schools should be open — 183 days for primary schools and 167 days for secondary schools — are included in the circular and the Department showed a flexibility of response to needs, especially in relation to unforeseen closures.
Does the Minister agree the publication of the circular was foolhardy and did not have the intended result? Does she agree it is a criticism of the amount of time teachers spend doing extra curricular activities? She is inferring that they are not spending enough time on such activities even though we are all aware of their voluntary commitment to culture, sport and other social activities outside school hours. By issuing the circular, the Minister has killed off that commitment and ruined what was an exceptionally well motivated teaching force.
Following the discussions on the Green and White Papers it was considered necessary for the Department of Education to define the school day and year. For primary schools, the school year consists of 183 days and the school day of no less than five hours and 40 minutes. Two hours and 50 minutes constitutes a half day and there are special rules for infant and first classes. This information was circulated to schools. The difficulty about sending infant classes home early is covered in the circular. Parents wanted to know the length of a school day. I did not add one hour or take away one minute, I merely defined it.
The definition is different for second level schools. Instruction hours will consist of 28 per week, six per day. Schools will continue to have discretion about distributing the 28 hours and their year will consist of 167 days. The length of a half day is defined and time spent on school related activities is also covered in the circular. At the teachers' annual conference I acknowledged the tremendous work done by teachers. I also acknowledge that work by attending celebrations organised by teachers. However, the good work of teachers does not mean the Department of Education is outside its remit in defining, for parents, the hours of the school day and year and school flexibility in that regard. Clarity was asked for and was given. We set up a help line for those with particular difficulties. I did not pre-empt the negotiations on the Programme for Competitiveness and Work talks. This is a defining circular and does not add a day or a minute to the school year.
Will the Minister accept that the difficulty regarding the circular relates more to the negative terms in which it was couched than to its definitions? Many teachers believe they are being upbraided by the Minister, their extra curricular activities were not acknowledged. The circular was interpreted rather negatively by the teachers and their unions.
Some people called for the clarification of the circular and the Department outlined that the school day or year was not being extended. We acknowledged the incorrect inference that was drawn from the circular by setting up a help line and making officials available to answer queries from schools. The Department acknowledged the negative interpretation of the circular and clarified the matter.
For something that was meant to be a mere defining mechanism, the circular caused immense damage and disillusionment in the system. The Minister followed through on the circular by introducing a 15 hours requirement in the context of the pay package. The Department can decide to close schools or facilitate their closure for a variety of reasons. Schools will close for two extra days next year for the provision of inservice training. Does the invoking of rule 60, which facilitates the closure of schools for a variety of reasons — not least the introduction of inservice training — undermine the definition of the school year and day in the circular? The Minister is playing games with people.
A "variety" of reasons is a colourful way of describing——
It is accurate.
——the Department's willingness to invest in inservice training for teachers as the demands placed on them increase? Their profession has never benefited from an investment in inservice training. The word "variety" is not an accurate description.
Schools may be closed if it snows.
The greatest difficulties arose in regard to exceptional closures. As I stated earlier, I will initiate a process of consultation with the various interests to review the operational aspects, but I do not intend to withdraw the time spent in school. There were 18 months of negotiation on the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and to say one followed the other ignores the level and intensity of the negotiation that took place. I did not pre-empt the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.