Deputy O'Shea was replying to the debate on amendment No. 70.
Education (No. 2) Bill, 1997: Report Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 70:
In page 13, line 12, after "policy" to insert "which does not involve entrance examinations and"
—(Deputy O'Shea).
I want to register my strong protest at what happened both inside and outside the House this morning. Information that was germane to our debate was withheld from the House by the Minister, yet it was in the possession of the press. You are showing your frivolity and arrogance once again.
The Deputy is smiling.
The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair rather than directly at the Minister.
The Minister interrupted me but nothing was said about that.
If the Deputy addresses his remarks through the Chair, we hope the Minister will not interrupt.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should draw attention to the Minister's frivolous acting.
The Minister organised a media event this morning. Information relevant to our debate was not given to the House, such as raising the school leaving age to 16, setting up a national education and welfare board and making truancy a national issue. Is it any wonder the people are not voting in the same numbers they used to or that politics and politicians are ridiculed? The Minister insulted this House and its Members by not passing on that information. What adds insult to injury is that we voted on those issues this morning without being given the information which had probably been given to the press.
That is not true.
The press had that information before we left the House.
That is wrong.
The information was given out on the news at 1 o'clock.
Would the Deputy like me to clarify the position?
No, I would like the Minister to apologise.
I will not apologise to anyone.
Will the Minister allow Deputy O'Shea to continue? I again ask the Deputy to address his remarks through the Chair.
I apologise, but my redirection emanated from the comments coming from the other side of the House.
I hope the Minister will not interrupt the Deputy again. I will not allow him to do so. However, if the Deputy addresses his remarks directly to the Minister he is being provocative and inviting interruption. I ask the Deputy to address his remarks through the Chair.
I want to assist the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in maintaining order. Part of what is at stake here is the dignity and constitutional position of the House. We were elected by the people and while the Minister may not have been very impressed by the arguments we presented earlier, it is disgraceful that he showed the House a discourtesy be being in possession of additional information which he did not impart.
The Deputy must address his remarks through the Chair.
I thought I was doing so, but I accept the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's admonition. An insult was visited upon the House and its Members this morning because we were allowed to debate an issue without being given the benefit of information which was in the possession of people outside this House — I refer here to the media — before our deliberations concluded. If the Minister does not intend to apologise and provide an undertaking that such a discourtesy will not be visited upon the House in the future, I will seek to have this matter referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Minister can be arrogant or frivolous or he can do what he likes but we cannot ignore the fact that this morning he insulted the House, its Members and democracy. He is a disgrace.
May I have the opportunity to reject——
I have the floor.
I will allow the Minister to clarify the position.
I regret the personal nature of the Deputy's attack, which is unwarranted.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
The comments made are unwarranted and unjustified. We are debating the Education Bill and, in that context, issues have been raised pertaining to children with behavioural difficulties and educational disadvantage. This morning I informed the Deputy that the school attendance Bill will deal with a number of those issues and others such as schools keeping records and the obligations on schools. During the deliberations on the Bill I have been extremely responsive to Opposition Members in terms of accepting amendments and resolving issues about which they are concerned.
This morning I took time to do a radio interview. We had a press briefing at 2.30 p.m. to announce that the Government had given me permission to proceed with drafting the school attendance Bill, information which had already been conveyed to the Dáil. We briefed the press in terms of the themes and principles of and the areas which would be covered by the Bill. I did not show discourtesy to the House — I would not do so. It is that simple. The radio interview lasted about three or four minutes and did not go into any great detail. It discussed the themes of early school leaving, the issue of attendance, etc. That was the background to it.
That explanation is unsatisfactory. The Minister did not state the school attendance age was being raised to 16 years nor did he mention the national education welfare board in the House. Those matters were germane to our discussions here this morning. The Minister then went out and made this information available on the airwaves. The reality is that he had no intention of imparting that information to the House before the sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m.
On a point of information, the interview was at 1.40 p.m.
The fact is we would have left the House and the debate would have been suspended without our being informed of these important changes. This morning the House voted on an amendment relating to educational welfare, but the Minister did not consider it sufficiently important to tell that to the House or to the spokespersons of the main political parties. Rather he decided to broadcast it by way of a radio interview while the House was still in session.
Wrong. The House was not in session. When the last Government published details of the heads of the Bill, it did not consult anybody.
We do not need a history lesson.
This holier-than-thou attitude is a little trumped up. I am prepared to deal with the Bill, to be as frank as possible with Deputies and to respond in meaningful way. This is a little unfair.
Will the Minister allow Deputy O'Shea continue without interruption? I ask Deputy O'Shea not to be repetitive because we would like to move on with the Bill.
I am responding to what the Minister said.
It is not necessary to repeat the same point a number of times.
This information was out on the airwaves before the House suspended today. That is the reality. The Minister had no intention of giving us that information before the suspension at lunchtime even though he knew he was going to announce it elsewhere.
The Deputy had that information. Everybody knew the school leaving age was being raised to 16 years. It was announced on many occasions before now.
The point has been made now, Deputy O'Shea.
This morning we discussed the school attendance issue. I tabled a parliamentary question as recently as yesterday on the school attendance issue and no reference was made to the fact that the Government had passed the heads of the Bill or intended to publish it today. The Minister left the House to do an interview about which a press release had already issued to the media for the 1 o'clock news. It was carried on the 1 o'clock news. It was not courteous of him to allow us sit here like idiots discussing issues relating to education while he was out discussing the same issues with the media without adverting to it here. I share Deputy O'Shea's feeling that this was less than courteous to the House and bad practice.
Deputy Bruton, I have allowed you to make your point. I ask Deputy O'Shea to move on from this issue. The point has been well made.
I will conclude by saying that not only was this information, particularly that which relates to the national education welfare board, not imparted to the Deputies who were debating the issue this morning, but the House divided on the question of education welfare boards without having had the benefit of this information. My criticism is that the Minister organised a media event and treated the House as a backdrop, a prop along the way. He treated the House with discourtesy and he has not given us an undertaking that he will not treat it with similar discourtesy again. I will pursue the road I said I would pursue.
Deputy O'Shea, I ask you to address your remarks through the Chair.
To discuss courtesy in the context of the long drawn out filibuster from Deputy O'Shea is a little rich.
The Minister seems to have a problem with arguments being presented more than once. This is a poor Bill and I will make no apologies to anyone for fully debating all of the issues surrounding it. The Minister can show his arrogance, flippancy or whatever, but he showed gross discourtesy to this House and his behaviour was nothing short of disgraceful.
To return to my amendment and the vexed question of entrance examinations, they should not be used to exclude pupils from school. This morning the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea indicated that the Minister would not accept this amendment. That is a retrograde step. We must send out a signal that people will not be excluded from schools for any reason other than the lack of accommodation, the ground included in a later section vis-a -vis appeals to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science. Therefore, it is contradictory not to accept this amendment or to take it on board with an undertaking to include the Minister's wording.
The way the Minister has chosen to treat the House today, shows he is not treating anything seriously.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Bradford, Paul.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- McDowell, Derek.
- Bruton, John.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Bruton, Richard.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Burke, Ulick.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Carey, Donal.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Currie, Austin.
- Neville, Dan.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Penrose, William.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Perry, John.
- Farrelly, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Sheehan, Patrick.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Collins, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Brady, Martin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Ellis, John.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Flood, Chris.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Carey, Pat.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Jacob, Joe.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- Killeen, Tony.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Kitt, Michael.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Power, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Roche, Dick.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Wade, Eddie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Wallace, Mary.
- McGuinness, John.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Woods, Michael.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Barrett; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 70a:
In page 13, line 34, after "as" to insert "are provided by law and such additional standards as are".
This is an amendment to section 10 which deals with the recognition of schools. It relates specifically to subsection (2)(e). Subsection (2) states that "The Minister may designate a school or a proposed school to be a school recognised for the purposes of this Act where the Minister, on a request being made for that purpose by the patron of a school or a proposed school, is satisfied that.". Subsection (2)(e) states that ".the school complies, or in the case of a proposed school shall comply, with health, safety and building standards as determined from time to time by the Minister,.". After the word "as" I propose to insert the words "are provided by law and such additional standards as are". The thinking behind my amendment is that the minimum standards that should be applied in all cases are those provided for by law. Subsection (2)(e) as worded does not provide that safeguard and I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
I move the following amendment to the Deputy's amendment:
In page 13, line 34, after "as" to insert "are determined by law and any further such standards as are".
I have been advised by the Office of the Attorney General that the wording in my amendment is tighter than the wording of the Deputy's amendment.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 70b:
In page 13, lines 44 and 45, to delete "school, shall be deemed to be a school recognised in accordance with this section." and substitute the following:
"school, shall be deemed to be a school recognised in accordance with this section.".
Section 10 (3) states:
A school that, on the commencement of this section, is in receipt of funds provided by the Oireachtas in respect of——
(a) the education activities for students of that school, or
(b) the remuneration of teachers in that school, shall be deemed to be a school recognised in accordance with this section.
My legal advice is that the format of section 10 (3) should be changed in line with my amendment to ensure the word "school" stands alone and is followed on the next line by the phrase "shall be deemed to be a school recognised in accordance with this section.".
I accept that amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 14, line 35, after "determine" to insert "and publish".
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the Minister shall publish each year the criteria for funding. This is to address a concern expressed on Committee Stage.
I welcome this amendment. It is important that there should be some element of transparency in how the Minister determines the funding basis. People should have access to a published scheme from which they could draw conclusions as to whether they have been treated fairly. Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 15, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall ensure that, so far as is practicable, each Inspector is appropriately qualified to assess and plan the requirements of students with disabilities or special education needs.".
This amendment relates to Part III and seeks to insert a new subsection to section 13 which deals with the inspectorate. I draw the Minister's attention to the phrase "so far as is practicable". The argument that it might not be appropriate to apply the provision in this subsection to inspectors who deal with a particular subject was advanced on Committee Stage, but I am not convinced by that argument and I take a neutral stand on that issue. However, it is important and necessary to include an amendment to this effect in the legislation. People who have a deep interest in education for the disabled or those with special needs have told me that until the inspectorate is fully aware of the difficulties encountered by people with disabilities or special needs, the necessary changes will not be made to the system. As the Minister said, people have had to resort to the courts to establish their constitutional rights in this regard and to ensure the necessary changes are made to the system.
The inclusion of this amendment would not place a particularly onerous task on those recruited to the inspectorate. To take a view other than this would merely perceive people with special needs as different from others. Education must be presented in an holistic fashion, it must be inclusive. If the inspectorate is not part of the support mechanism inside and outside the education system, it will militate against the development of the type of provision all Members agree is necessary to provide the greatest possible level of provision and integration of people with disabilities or special needs. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment. If that necessitates the provision of courses for those who may wish to become inspectors, so be it. I am sure it is unacceptable to most people that the inspectorate is not fully versed on the needs and abilities of those with disabilities and the way in which the problems they encounter can best be dealt with.
I support this amendment. Every inspector, when assessing the operation of a school, should know how children with special needs can be properly accommodated. Various obligations are given to inspectors under subsection (3)(a)(i) when they visit schools to evaluate their organisation and standards. It is important that they have the additional perspective of understanding the needs of children with disabilities and special needs.
The Minister may say the wording "appropriately qualified" suggests a university qualification. However, the wording is fine as it will require the Minister or his Department to provide some form of in-service training for inspectors so they can get up to a reasonable standard, without rigidly specifying what it is. The principle of this amendment is reasonable.
We had a long discussion on this amendment on Committee Stage when I outlined the reasons I was not disposed to accepting it. The Bill already provides that the inspectorate should have among its members persons who have other expertise, including expertise in the education of students with special educational needs. This adequately meets the objectives of the amendment which accordingly is unnecessary.
I disagree with the Minister. If those recruited into the inspectorate at primary level are not competent in assessing the special educational needs of pupils it is a large deficit in what is being provided. I do not wish to raise the temperature in this debate but the Minister is not focusing on the essence of this amendment. Parents of children with special educational needs have to know that when this Bill is passed the inspectors coming into the system, at whatever level, will have an understanding and appreciation of and expertise in, people with disabilities.
The Minister has probably seen how it works as regards applications to local authorities for extensions for disabled people. When these are referred by local authorities to occupational therapists and professionalism is brought to bear, small changes can have significant positive effects. Will the Minister reconsider his position? I am not asking him to accept the wording. The Minister is aware of what I am seeking to achieve.
If we recruit people into the inspectorate in the Department of Education and Science who do not have the required understanding and knowledge of disabled people or those with special needs——
The Deputy's contribution is concluded as the second contribution is limited to two minutes.
The Minister referred to Committee Stage, to which I did not have a chance to refer. Every inspector should have a basic understanding of special needs when assessing a school which has a broad range of pupils. There are 8,000 pupils with special needs in the ordinary primary system. There should be an obligation on every inspector to have some capability in this area rather than pointing to head office expertise or capability. I am not sure the Minister has addressed the amendment.
I have nothing further to add.
That saddens me. I know people involved in this sector will see the Minister's decision as a backward step. In the Bill, as the Minister is allowing it to go forward, there is no provision for everyone in the inspectorate to have the knowledge I outlined earlier. I will have to press the amendment.
The Minister's attitude is difficult to understand. He spoke about the existing situation. Some inspectors specialise in this area. However, in terms of meeting the requirements of parents and special needs pupils, each inspector should have a level of expertise which could be used in a positive and constructive manner on their behalf. The Minister's attitude is baffling and I have no recourse other than to press the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Bruton, John.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Bruton, Richard.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Burke, Ulick.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Carey, Donal.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Currie, Austin.
- Naughten, Denis.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Neville, Dan.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Farrelly, John.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Sheehan, Patrick.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Stanton, David.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Brady, Martin.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- McDaid, Jim.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- McGennis, Marian.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- McGuinness, John.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Carey, Pat.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Collins, Michael.
- Moloney, John.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Cullen, Martin.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- Doherty, Seán.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ellis, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Power, Seán.
- Flood, Chris.
- Roche, Dick.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Wade, Eddie.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Woods, Michael.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Barrett; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 15, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(3) The functions of the Chief Inspector shall be——
(a) to manage and co-ordinate the activities of Inspectors so as to maximise output,
(b) to assist and support Inspectors in the discharge of their functions,
(c) to take direction from the Minister in relation to policy matters,
(d) to report to and advise the Minister,
(e) to prepare and present to the Minister by November 1st each year an annual report on the Inspectorate and the Minister shall, with or without amendment, lay the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the first sitting day of the following year, and
(f) to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities involved in or seeking access to the education system are addressed.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 15, line 26, to delete ", as directed by the Minister and" and substitute "and, following consultation with the board, patron, parents of students and teachers, as appropriate,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 15, line 26, before "as directed" to insert "on the initiative of the Inspectorate, or".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 15, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"(III) assess the implementation and effectiveness of any programmes of education which have been devised in respect of individual students who have a disability or other special educational needs;".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 78 not moved.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 15, line 38, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Chief Inspector".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 80, 82 and 83 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 15, line 38, after "Minister" to insert ", or to the board, patron, parents of students and teachers, as appropriate, and as prescribed,".
The purpose of this amendment is to respond to a concern expressed on Committee Stage that the Bill should provide for inspectors to report on matters related to a school, not only to the Minister but also to the local partners in education. Amendment No. 82 proposed by Deputy Bruton covers, more or less, the same issue. Deputy Bruton's amendment No. 83 is not necessary. Section 13(7) already provides for inspectors to carry out their functions in accordance with procedures and criteria determined in consultation with the partners in education. I would expect inspectors to be flexible in their approach through consultation with the partners in the performance of their functions.
I am a little confused because the Minister's reply is quite terse. As I understand section 13(7) an inspector shall carry out his work in accordance with procedures and criteria as may be determined by the Minister. The Minister must consult about the guidelines but there is no obligation on inspectors, when they carry out such an inspection, to consult with the education partners. As I understand it the current practice is the opposite. Inspectors rarely consult parents in the conduct of inspections. My recollection is that cutting parents out of such consultation rights was a major issue in the discussion on school evaluation. All the partners in a school should be treated equally and it is important that an inspector should hear the views of parents as much as those of any other group.
My amendment seeks to ensure that in such a school evaluation, an inspector shall consult all the education partners in the school and take their views into account in developing proposals to assist the improvement of the school. The phrase "take their views into account" was deliberately used. I do not say that the inspectorate should slavishly follow the views of one of the education partners, whether parents, teachers, students or the wider community, if they are actively involved in the work of the school. There is an expectation and an entitlement that the views of the partners would be heard by an inspector whose function is to help in the process of improving the school and not simply to engage in quality control in the old fashioned sense. It should be more of a partnership exercise. This is an important principle and I hope the Minister does not say he will not treat parents as equal partners in this process.
Amendment No. 82 deals with reporting to the school and to the educational partners in the school on these and other matters relating to the activities of the school or centres, and the needs of students attending those centres. In other words, people would not only have their views heard but would be made aware of recommendations that might emerge from the process of inspection. That would make the process more meaningful and more in the spirit of partnership which the Minister has been at pains to say is at the heart of this legislation. Many people believe, however, that if there is a disagreement about the role of parents, the parents will lose out to other partners who might be of the view, to quote the Minister of State, that there should not be a charter for busy bodies. While that comment by the Minister of State may be a caricature, elements of that view come across in the Bill and that should be weeded out in this area. I am glad the Minister is taking this section and not the Minister of State who I suspect would not entertain any such changes.
These amendments would add to the Bill and the general spirit of what the Minister is seeking to do, although he occasionally fails to deliver in that regard.
I will address my initial remarks to amendment No. 80 in the name of the Minister. As I understand it, if this amendment is accepted the functions of an inspector will be to report to the Minister or to the board, patron, parents of students and teachers, as appropriate and as prescribed, on these or other matters which relate to the activities of those schools or centres and the needs of students attending them. I welcome the thrust of the amendment but we need further information on the format of this type of consultation. How will the partners, the spokespersons for the partners and so on be identified or will these consultations take place in a random manner?
In regard to amendment No. 83, we dealt with this matter in committee when Deputy Bruton specifically referred to the whole school evaluation process. It is not entirely true to say that parents do not have a role in that process. Because of the agreements we reached late last year and all the discussions vis-a -vis the establishment of primary school boards of management, with parents on those boards, parents now receive the reports that emanate from the whole school evaluation pilot project.
Deputy Bruton's amendment would alter the agreements entered into between the Department and the partners in education in respect of whole school evaluation process. This is a delicate issue which involved a great deal of difficult work, in advance of the establishment of the pilot project by the chief inspector and his team, to establish the bona fides of all concerned and to enable people to engage in the process both at primary and second level. It should be noted that for many years there was no system of inspection at second level and, therefore, whole school evaluation is a different concept to the old-fashioned inspection type approach.
I am reluctant to insert in legislation a measure that would jeopardise the development of the whole school evaluation pilot project. We continue to work to bring all the partners on board because at this stage not all of them are on board. One teachers' union, for example, continues to have difficulties with whole school evaluation and is not on board in terms of the pilot project.
We must proceed with caution. The objective is to establish a comprehensive system of whole school evaluation which has the agreement of all the partners and in which all the partners will enthusiastically engage. That is the approach I intend to take when the inspectorate conducts evaluations. For practical purposes, we are talking about whole school evaluation.
In relation to amendment No. 80, we are including specific categories of people to whom the inspector may report. We mention the patron, parents, students and teachers — the key partners in a school community. That was done to meet the concerns articulated on Committee Stage.
I do not know what agreement the Minister entered into, but if it does not recognise that parents are equal partners who have a right to be consulted on serious issues like this outside of sole representation on the board, it is a bad agreement. The Minister said one union was not yet on board but the parents are not on board and that undermines their rights. The agreement is not satisfactory. We are trying to set legislation that provides a framework which is fair to everyone, and parents should not be left out of an ongoing consultation process. It is ironic that the Minister agrees that parents should be told about the outcome of the consultations but that they will not be consulted about the process. That seems to underline the weakness of his position. He recognises the role of parents on the one hand, but when they could make a creative input he will not recognise them for fear of upsetting someone else who is regarded as a partner. Partnership has to be a two-way process and the Minister has not given a satisfactory reply in that regard. His amendment No. 80 highlights the weakness in the position he is trying to defend in regard to my amendment No. 83.
Dr. Upton
The Minister dealt with the question of school league tables and so on, which is welcome. Education does not need that kind of environment. Is he satisfied, however, that will not happen as part of the consultation with parents and the flow of information back to them? I put it to the Minister that it may be possible to draw conclusions from feed-back on evaluations which in turn might lead to damaging comparisons being made in local areas. A certain amount of that is unavoidable.
There are specific amendments tabled which cover the point raised by the Deputy. They will be dealt with later.
While the concept of reporting to parents and students is welcome, I share some of the concerns expressed by the Minister and Deputy Upton as to how this flow of information can be developed. My major concern is that there is a tendency for some schools to be adept at PR while others are not so good at it. The danger is that as reports are drawn up, the information will seep into the community where it could be used for the advantage of one school. That is addressed later in the Bill but this is uncharted territory. The Freedom of Information Act has made this development inevitable.
The fundamental point concerns the partnership of parents in the education system and amendment No. 80 is a step in the right direction. I fervently believe that parents need to be drawn into the system.
There are difficulties and dangers with the wider dissemination of information and the wherewithal to be able to assess levels of sensitivity. There is a danger that if restrictions are introduced they will have a self-defeating aspect, but with those caveats I will support the amendment.
I support the amendment. I recognise, however, that we are putting into place the whole school evaluation system without resources. The requests from the Department of Education and Science to get involved in training for the system are causing disruption in schools. It may not be identified as such but teachers are being taken out of the classroom to attend in-service courses on this. Resources to provide substitute cover are not clearly identified as no one knows whether in-service training is official because it is on a voluntary basis. The Minister admits that all the partners in education are not on board. One of the reasons the TUI is not on board is that there is no indication the Minister will grant proper resources for the proposals involved.
The school evaluation pilot project is a good process. It allows schools to evaluate their performances with the help of the inspectorate. I was at prize giving in one of the pilot schools and the feedback about the lessons to be learned from the evaluation project from the principal and the teachers was very positive. The matter of resources is part of the evaluation process. The Department must respond to evaluation reports which highlight a lack of resources in certain areas.
In the first period of the pilot project 12 schools took part. We are now moving onto the second phase. The TUI situation is more complex and not just for the reason to which the Deputy alluded. There are other factors involved such as fundamental issues of trust. This is not a witch-hunt inspection approach but a genuine attempt to evaluate how a school is doing, from which the school community can learn. It will take time to deal with that and to ease people's fears.
I do not consider the agreement I made was a bad agreement. I am a great believer in getting things off the ground and the chief inspector deserves particular praise for his painstaking approach to this issue. I allowed him a major input into developing the process. At least there is a project up and running, we are no longer just talking about it, and that is far more important than inaction.
Parents, as members of boards of management, are involved but only as board members. Parents' associations elect representatives to the boards of management and that is an important point.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 15, line 41, after "centres" to insert "and make recommendations on possible improvements including the resource requirements associated with those recommendations.".
This amendment picks up on what Deputy Burke said. One of the key elements for a process of inspection and evaluation which will inspire confidence in the partners involved will be a recognition that improvements in school performance cannot be manufactured out of thin air, they will require resourcing. If a school in a process of evaluation by inspection identifies serious deficiencies in remedial resources, home-school liaison or children with special needs, or in activities outside the normal mainstream education such as the need to bring youth clubs in to support initiatives in relation to early school leaving or community groups, it is crucial the inspection is not seen as looking at the school in isolation. The inspector must indicate honestly that there are resource requirements and these requirements should be heralded to the Minister, the Department and the public. People will then know there is a recognised need in this area which is not only demanded by schools — which are always rightly putting forward demands for their betterment — but is also endorsed by an independent inspector. That would give a great deal of credibility.
As Deputy Burke said, if we want to develop this process more meaningfully the key is access to resources. There should be a fund to back this exercise so that as schools are evaluated and their needs identified, a floating fund is available to the Minister to draw down additional teaching resources. It would dramatically change the whole environment in which school plans are drawn up and the attitude to the inspector's visit.
In this amendment I am not committing resources, I am saying that the inspector should make recommendations on possible improvements, including the resource requirements associated with those recommendations, so that it would be a fair and honest appraisal and would become a credible basis on which a school could seek additional resources in the following cycle.
I have no difficulty in accepting that amendment. That is part of the whole school evaluation process. The process is not just about making recommendations, the inspectorate must also make recommendations which have resource implications. I accept the amendment in principle subject to the draftsman being satisfied with the terminology.
A previous example of where the Department made resources available was in respect of the transition year introduced some years ago. The pilot schools worked in consultation with the inspectorate. However, there are fears as outlined in debate on the previous amendment. It is difficult for an ageing teaching population to suddenly change practices. There is a genuine fear of the unknown and how the inspection might be misused in certain instances. I am not saying such misuse will be widespread but there is scope for it.
While I support Deputy Bruton's amendment, we have an example of the transition year where inspectors and other people directly involved came into the schools and evaluated the work of the teachers involved. That is a forerunner of what is incorporated in the Bill and in the amendment. There will be no fear, provided the selling process is handled properly. It is important that it is clearly indicated that whatever resources are necessary will be put in place at the outset and there should be no doubt about it in anybody's mind. If it is to succeed, it is crucial that the initial response of the partners in education is positive.
I am pleased the Minister accepts my amendment but I will be happy to withdraw it if he wishes to consult the draftsman before accepting the text. The important message is that a block of resources be set aside each year which will be available as a follow-up resource fund to the process of evaluation and inspection. It is important that people know beforehand that there is something of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It would dramatically change schools attitudes to drawing up plans and co-operating with advice from the Department and the inspectorate. It is an important distinction and one that is not in the present school evaluation pilot. There is no block of resources available to be drawn down to meet the needs. Schools must compete for resources and the Minister may not recognise their needs. I am happy with the Minister's response. Perhaps if we were here for another day we would agree with much more.
In supporting the amendment I agree a fund should be put in place for emergencies in schools where there are children with disabilities and child care assistants. I am aware of a child care assistant who is being funded by the partnership but the money is running out. Given that the child care assistant does not qualify for a FÁS scheme, she will have to be let go. The person who may be appointed may not be as compatible with the child. In emergency cases it is important that the Minister would have the necessary funds particularly in the case of children with disabilities who need child care assistants. When a child has confidence in a child care assistant it is important that that person be allowed to remain with the child, for the duration of his or her schooling. There are cases where the child care assistant is not being funded by the Department and we are endeavouring to secure funding from other sources. If a fund was in place, the child could continue to go to school with the child care assistant.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 15, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:
"(V) In conducting such evaluations, the Inspector shall consult with all the education partners in the school, and take their views into account in developing proposals to assist the improvement of educational services in the school,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Carlow-Kilkenny): We come to amendment No. 84. Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 are related. It is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 84, 86 and 87 by agreement.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 16, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(v) shall constantly monitor and review methods of teaching Irish in line with the objective of greatly improving speaking and communicative ability;".
We are still on the subject of the inspectorate. This amendment is a further function I am seeking to have inserted. It is related to the question of the Irish language within the education system. We cannot be happy with the results of many years of substantial resources that have gone into the education system aimed at the revival of the Irish language as a spoken language. There are many reasons for this. The quality of work in our schools is of a high order but frequently children emerge from school and go into an environment which is indifferent to the Irish language and the skills acquired at first or second level become rusty because of lack of use.
The wider question that has to be addressed is how the population at large is to be educated on the importance of the Irish language in our culture, its relevance and how it enriches our lives. If we regard education as being a process in which we involve ourselves from the cradle to the grave, the education of the population at large in the Irish language is relevant and becomes more and more important.
The areas where the Irish language is the spoken language are contracting. I have no gauge on the use of Irish as a spoken language. I am not sure if substantial research has been done on the use of the language outside our schools recently.
Against the background of wider interaction between the inspectorate and the partners in education the Minister and the Department now have another vehicle for furthering the cause of the Irish language, not as it was done too often in the past but in an inclusive way which makes clear what our heritage is.
My amendment No. 84 seeks that the inspectorate should constantly monitor and review methods of teaching Irish in line with the objective of greatly improving speaking and communication ability. This is extremely important. There have been various initiatives in my lifetime on the teaching of Irish in schools and as technology has developed audio-visual aids have been used, but we are not making as much progress as we should. The amendment is not designed to put greater onus on schools or teachers but to review the system, particularly the interface with the community, parents, students and others involved in the education system. Some of the measures discussed in earlier amendments will provide for more accountability to the public, greater dissemination of information and accurate descriptions. A great number of people value the language and we need to increase that group.
Given that a large amount of resources is devoted each year to teaching Irish in the primary and secondary systems, it is incumbent upon us to monitor what is happening, through the inspectorate, to ensure, for example, improvements in teaching methods are made. Later we shall discuss various educational aids, such as books, audio-visual aids, etc. There is a commitment in the Bill to a forás to focus on the Gaeltacht schools and Gaelscoileanna, but that approach will not necessarily prove to be the most relevant or productive.
One attractive element of Telefís na Gaeilge is that it will enable the development of quality children's programmes. However, there are great differences between the various dialects of Irish, canúintí éagsúla, particularly between the language as spoken in Donegal and in Munster. As time passes, the language will become the same throughout the country, if current trends continue. The various canúintí will become more standardised — not quite Gaeilge Baile Átha Cliath, as it was once known, but the same dialect will exist throughout the country. If this happens, it will strengthen the argument for providing áiseanna not only to the 5 per cent of schools but to the other 95 per cent.
My other amendment seeks to evaluate the overall effectiveness of all aspects of the teaching, development, promotion and use of the Irish language within the education system, and to report thereon to the Minister. The key matter in terms of assessment and evaluation is that there should be regular reporting to the Minister, and that the Department takes a hands-on approach to what is happening. I remain to be convinced that the standard of spoken Irish of pupils at the end of the second level cycle is as high as it was in the 1960s, which is the period of which I have most experience. I hope the Minister is amenable to what I propose, which is that the inspectorate should have an ongoing role in making an annual report and evaluations.
I will wait for the Minister to elucidate his amendment before commenting on it. I have no hang-up about my amendment but there should be a statutory responsibility to make annual reports on the Irish language in the educational system. A huge amount of resources are involved but the level of success outside schools is not what we would like.
I support the Minister's amendment No. 87. I said on Committee Stage that the Bill did not mention that the aim is to promote excellence in management and teaching. That is at the heart of this process and I am glad the Minister has provided for it, as he said he would, because it was strange that it was missing. He has also restored the role of disseminating information, which was in earlier versions of the Bill but somehow slipped through the cracks later. In this case the dissemination of information relates solely to the inspectorate whereas the Bill originally envisaged a wider promotion of debate. Nonetheless, this is progress in that the Minister is broadening the scope of the inspectorate and seeking to make it more focused on excellence, open debate and participation. I sought such amendments on earlier stages and I am glad they are being provided for now.
The amendments of Deputy O'Shea and the Minister concern the effectiveness of teaching development and the promotion of the use of Irish in schools. I suppose the two versions are alternatives, although I prefer Deputy O'Shea's amendment No. 86 to amendment No. 84. There is no doubt there are serious issues surrounding our success in promoting the Irish language. Most of us have had at least 12 years of schooling in Irish but often find it much more difficult to articulate in Irish than in a foreign language in which we have had a much shorter period of instruction. That proves there is something seriously wrong.
The Irish language deserves separate mention. One could say that paragraph (b) in the existing provision, to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the provision of education, encompasses every subject whether it be science, mathematics, English, French or Irish. However, it is worth mentioning Irish separately because there is doubt as to whether we have succeeded in our objective, given that we devote quite a lot of time in the curriculum to it. I hope this debate will open up new ways of looking at Irish and new teaching methods in regard to it.
Deputy O'Shea also adverted to the fact that there is some degree of confusion about the Minister's intentions regarding support services. There was a view, which the Minister sponsored in an amendment, that he would provide support services to the teaching of Irish in ordinary schools and in all-Irish schools. He now appears to be reverting, in section 31, to providing support solely to all-Irish schools. The argument has been made, with some credibility, that successful teaching of Irish in any school revolves around teaching subject matter which is not solely language based. In other words, to teach Irish successfully one has to teach geography, science and so on through Irish, even in schools which are not all-Irish schools. In other words, one has to incorporate the Irish language into other activities in the curriculum rather than just teaching it in the three quarters of an hour which is designated for the teaching of Irish. That raises the issue of support services for both types of schools.
I do not know if the Minister has indicated it officially, but I understand there is talk about having two bodies, one to deal with the Irish language in all-Irish schools and the other to deal with Irish in other schools. It will not be a great outcome if we end up with two bodies working parallel to each other. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to flag his views on that matter which is exercising the minds of quite a number of people who have great commitment to the development of the Irish language. There is a lack of clarity as to Government intentions in this area. At this stage of the debate it would be good to have them clarified.
I question the effectiveness of the inspectorate to date in promoting the Irish language. It has been too thin on the ground to be effective. It has to be realised that there is huge resistance to the Irish language among the younger generation going through the education system at primary and second level schools. I do not know the reason for that resistance or whether anybody can identify it, but it has to be tackled if we are to promote the Irish language as our first language. Everyone realises, given the serious decline in the use of Irish even in the Gaeltacht areas, the great challenge that will pose, but I do not know how it can be met. I support the sentiments of the amendments.
We have had report after report on the Irish language over the years on how to support it and make it more acceptable in the school context. Our first measure in making it acceptable was the introduction of oral examinations. How effective have they been in improving spoken Irish? Why is it that at 12 years of age we can take on one or even two modern Continental languages and make far greater progress in a shorter space of time than we achieved in the Irish language? That is a very serious question to be faced up to by the Minister and the inspectorate. It is difficult to say how it can be overcome. Despite the vigilance of the inspectorate in promoting the language, it has slid down a slippery slope to a very low level. Teilifís na Gaeilge, Radio na Gaeltachta, and the Irish periodicals, which have been favourably subsidised by various organisations with a view to promoting the Irish language, have all in turn failed to promote the language. The development of Gaelscoileanna is an encouragement. Gaelscoileanna are developing in the most extraordinary places, in areas where we would not have thought there would be an interest ten to 15 years ago. Some people would like us to think Gaelscoileanna are promoted only by certain sections of our society, but they are being developed across the board. The Minister may have visited the one in Ballinasloe which is operating within the confines of a disused shopping centre. I hope he will remedy that situation in the near future because that is not conducive to the promotion of Irish.
The Minister has a clear opportunity to promote Irish when a request comes from the ground up rather than from the top down. He has an opportunity to respond positively to such endeavours to promote the Irish language. A quick response to such requests could turn the whole thing around. There is nothing as heartening as to go into a Gaelscoil and see young students of six, seven or eight years of age being encouraged and endeavouring to learn Irish, and carrying it into their play outside school and into their own households. If we are serious about encouraging the use of Irish, a very positive response should be forthcoming. That is the way forward and I hope the Minister will respond.
These amendment deal with the inspectorate. Amendments Nos. 84 and 86 deal with the issue of the Irish language. My amendment No. 87 is more wide-ranging and deals with a number of issues that were raised on Committee Stage. Paragraph (d) of amendment No. 87 deals with the promotion of "excellence in the management of, teaching in and the use of support services by schools and in the procedures for consultation and co-operation within and between schools and centres for education". That issue was raised on Committee Stage and I am glad to include it in this amendment on Report Stage.
Paragraph (e) relates not only to disseminating information on "the performance by the Inspectorate of the functions provided for in this section", but also to "successful educational initiatives which have been implemented by schools and centres for education". If inspectors are aware of models of best practice in schools in other areas they will bring them to the attention of schools within their area and will promote informed debate on these issues. That is a very pro-active role for the inspectorate.
Paragraph (f) deals effectively with amendments Nos. 84 and 86 in relation to the Irish language. It proposes that the inspectorate shall "evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching, development, promotion and use of Irish in schools and centres for education and to report to the Minister on those matters". By and large, that covers the issues contained in Deputy O'Shea's amendment. It is more specific than the other sections of the Bill which give this function to the inspectorate anyway. It does so in a more generic way in terms of the generality of its functions. We do not specify subjects but in paragraph (f) we specify a role for the inspectorate in evaluating the effectiveness of teaching developments and the promotion and use of Irish in schools and education centres.
Deputy Bruton raised a point about gaelscoileanna and the promotion of Irish in schools outside the gaelscoileanna. It is my intention to stay with the original draft of the Bill. We are establishing a body for schools that teach through the medium of Irish at both levels. The reason for the establishment of that body came originally from Irish language schools, which for years have been articulating the point that they have certain structural deficiencies in respect of curriculum materials, teaching resources, in-service training for teachers and various audio-visual equipment. Irish language schools do not have the same text books or material resources that other schools have. It has been felt for some time that there is a need for a resource base for schools that teach through the medium of Irish. We intend to establish a body to co-ordinate that and give effect to those kinds of issues that have been raised on an ongoing basis by such schools.
Is there to be a body for the other schools teaching Irish as a language?
We recently discussed with Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge the issue of teaching Irish generally. If I recollect, one of the results of the meeting was that An Comhdháil would consult with the partners in education, particularly the teaching unions and parents, to get their views on the teaching of Irish in the gnáth bunscoil. The primary school syllabus will bring forward a new curriculum in Irish which will lead to significant in-service programmes for the teaching of Irish vis-a -vis the new curriculum.
I will not be pressing my amendments. What they sought to achieve has effectively been covered by paragraph (d) of the Minister's amendment. Having listened to the Minister, the construction of the amendment is a welcome addition to the Bill. The fundamental issue is the provision of the áiseanna for teaching Irish. If we are talking about the 5 per cent of schools — that is the Gaeltacht schools and gaelscoileanna — being provided with these aiseanna, a considerable resource input will be needed. If, on the other hand, we are talking of not providing this to the other schools——
May I be of assistance by explaining that point? When we say áiseanna we are not talking just about Irish itself as a subject. In gaelscoileanna, history, geography, science and other subjects are all taught through the medium of Irish. There is an absence of textbooks and resource materials for all those subjects in schools that teach through the medium of Irish. The point has been articulated for years that there has been a lack of resource material for all subjects other than the Irish language.
That is a very valid and relevant point but I would add a rider to it. The availability of this sort of additional material in mainstream schools, which are not gaelscoileanna, for children who are functioning at a high level in mastering the Irish language, is equally desirable. Whereas I welcome the provision of such materials in the scoil na Gaeltachta and gaelscoileanna, I have reservations about it because we might be producing an elite through this system. In a certain sense it could signal to the other 95 per cent of schools that Irish is not a big issue in terms of the standards we expect from them.
We had a balanced and perceptive contribution from Deputy Burke who outlined the situation that we all know to be the case. There may be better ways of employing the resources that are currently being put in. The evaluation the Minister has agreed to in his amendment will mean that more comprehensive and effective information will be fed into the Department.
What is our objective in teaching Irish? It could very well be that of Pádraig Pearse — moving towards the bi-lingual society. People might develop bi-lingual facilities in the context of our membership of the European Union, where trilingualism is the order of the day. We may have success through gaelscoileanna and the scoil na Gaeltachta, but if we do not address the decline in Irish on a comprehensive basis we will not move forward from the status quo. There is need for a dynamic response to the Irish language from the population at large. As politicians we often hear criticism about where money is spent on the language. I am committed to the revival of Irish but in all honesty we are not achieving as much as we should. If we go down the road of providing materials across the whole spectrum of subjects in gaelscoileanna and neglect to improve the provision for the generality of schools, we will not be rendering the Irish language a service. One may ask whether the attraction to gaelscoileanna is the higher level of capitation grants or, in some instances, the lower pupil teacher ratio. We could probably end up finding the result is the same and that children acquire the Irish language anyway.
I accept the Minister's amendment and withdraw mine. The Department of Education and Science must be more proactive in instigating a widespread debate on this matter within the community at large. If it is done properly and the Irish language and its place in society is examined, the climate can be created whereby the resources put into the teaching of Irish will reap a larger dividend. There should be no restriction on measures to support Irish language schools, be they in the Gaeltacht or Gaelscoileanna. I accept the Minister's point about different agendas being served, but there will be a basis of material which will be either common to all schools within the system or appropriate to children achieving a high standard of Irish in national schools.
I am not aware of any empirical evidence that the standard of Irish of children leaving primary schools is any lower than that of those leaving gaelscoileanna. Many mainstream schools achieve a high level of proficiency in Irish and that fact can sometimes be lost sight of. The main problem is the attitude to Irish beyond the school and the unwelcome environment for children who want to use the language.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 16, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(c) to publish each a report on its work and on its findings in relation to the strengths and weaknesses of the Irish education system;".
This is an important amendment to which I hope the Minister accedes. It asks that the inspectorate publish an annual report on its work and findings relating to the strengths and weaknesses of the education system. It is important there be such a report to examine issues such as standards, achievements and progress in the system. It is remarkable that, while we occasionally participate in OECD sponsored research work on literacy and standards of mathematics, English and science, such research is not carried out on a systematic basis here nor are reports produced from within the system concerning issues which go to its core. Now that a formal legislative basis is being given to the inspectorate giving it a remit to examine many issues, such as those we have discussed relating to the Irish language, it is important that the benefit of this be capitalised upon by requesting the inspectorate to publish an annual report in which it sets out its findings fairly and fearlessly regarding what it believes are the strengths and weaknesses of the system.
It would promote a healthy debate and perhaps move it away from issues, such as ratios of one thing to another, towards more substantive issues, such as what is being achieved. It would be a positive development which would open up an area of the debate in which parents could participate more meaningfully because these are matters which greatly concern them. There must be a mechanism to determine what is being achieved by the education system, what progress is being made and where it is not being made. It would be a spur to all with a say in the education system to redouble their efforts and focus on important issues. I hope the amendment commends itself to the Minister.
I enthusiastically support the amendment for the reasons outlined by Deputy Bruton and for others. There is such a plethora of reports now that Deputies could not possibly read all the literature which comes their way from many sources. I assume the amendment was meant to read that a report on the work of the inspectorate would be published each year?
Yes.
A yearly report is something which becomes more vital as time goes on. In compiling its report, the inspectorate should bear in mind the Shakespearean phrase which states that brevity is the soul of wit. Many of the reports we read contain an overwhelming amount of verbiage and the real information, recommendations and issues are often obscured. I see the report compiled by the inspectorate as being brief.
Since I became Labour Party spokesman on education, issues have been brought to my attention about which I was not previously aware. For example, there is concern about science and the teaching of it at second level. This is something to which the Minister has given substantial attention. The point made to me concerned the difficulty in the current economic climate of attracting science graduates into education and, more importantly, holding on to them as there are many career opportunities available in what is a vibrant private sector. The other issue related to how the points system can be manipulated so that subjects not as demanding as science subjects will be sat by students to increase their points rating. However, I wish to be positive and I take on board and welcome the work the Minister has carried out on the points system.
However, the important feature of the yearly reports is that they will flag problems at an early stage. Publishing the reports and making them available to the social partners and to those involved in economic planning generally is important. I see the reports being published shortly after the end of the examination cycle when the results are published. Examinations must be accepted as an integral part of the school year, certainly at second level. There is a need to see and evaluate what is being done and to report fearlessly on the system. I do not envisage the report condemning anyone. However, if we are taking the wrong action, if, because of shortcomings in the system, students are choosing the wrong subjects or if the sort of decisions required to progress the country's culture and economy are not being taken, the report, if it is fearless in nature, should flag such difficulties at an early stage. This kind of report would put the Minister of the day under pressure in a way that he or she would not otherwise be put under pressure. I am not making these points in the context of commenting upon the record of the present incumbent.
There is an old administrative adage that information is power and if one withholds information one will not exert pressure on oneself. However, the day of such behaviour is fast departing. Irish public life is now marked by openness and accountability, freedom of information and full disclosure. We must accept the way in which our society has developed. I welcome the changes that are taking place. A Department which can be critical of itself on a regular basis — if such criticism is necessary — is a good Department. I am not stating that a document should appear which is totally negative because the positives must be highlighted to boost morale and provide thanks to the many people involved in teaching.
We do not produce enough reports. We commission reports and pilot projects — which are necessary and make an input in their own way — but we have not engaged in producing what I would term a "cost-benefit analysis". I accept that is a separate issue but such an analysis should be applied to the education system from first to third level. We must be aware of our strengths and weaknesses. We must not be afraid to confront those weaknesses because, if we do, they will be more speedily resolved and students, teachers, parents, the partners in education and the nation will benefit from a more open and brave approach.
I support the amendment. The only annual report we receive from the inspectorate details its involvement in the examination system. That report is regularly informative and helpful and it details the position regarding the effectiveness of teachers in so far as the decline in standards is highlighted by the grades they obtain in certain subjects. However, it is important that such reports should cover all other areas of education because they would help to target areas of weakness in certain sections of the system.
While such a report could be produced on primary and second level schools, is there a case to request that the inspectorate should report on or carry out a comparable evaluation of third level institutions? Major resources have been invested in third level as opposed to primary level education. The system resembles an inverted pyra-mid because a high level of resources is diverted to third level institutions while the level provided to primary schools is relatively low.
Legislation was passed last year by the previous Administration, namely, the Universities Act, which does not allow for an inspectorate to inspect or evaluate the third level sector.
It is time for change.
There is an obligation on the Department of Education and Science to produce an annual report. The report of the inspectorate should form part of the annual report of the Department. Otherwise we could state that different sections of the Department, all of which have important functions, should produce separate annual reports. While I recognise the importance of the inspectorate, it is best to proceed on the basis of producing one coherent annual report involving the entire team within the Department. I have no difficulty with that report being critical in nature or analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the system.
In terms of international standards, I accept that the issue of quality is central to our work. However, information in this area will only be obtained from our participation in international comparative analyses of students performance in various subjects at different age levels. As already stated, I am committed to moving forward in that. Our past participation in international comparative studies has been patchy. It is vital that we reverse that trend to obtain information about where Ireland stands in the overall international scheme of things because that relates to our competitiveness.
The strategic management initiative and the Public Service Management Act place obligations on the Department in terms of producing reports. What we are concerned with now is the format those reports should take. However, I would prefer the Department as a whole to produce an annual report on the education system's weaknesses and strengths.
I take issue with the Minister's assertion that a report, which he will launch, should be produced by the Department each year and that that would deal adequately with the report of the work of the inspectorate. The inspectorate is being dealt with in a separate section because its members have an important independent function and they are seen as fair observers of what is happening in schools and have a role to play in evaluating the quality and effectiveness of the provision of education including comparisons with relevant international practice and standards and to report thereon to the Minister. Essentially the Minister stated that he will derive the benefit of these reports being furnished to him and will publish what he believes is satisfactory in the Department's annual report.
If we are to establish an inspectorate to pursue this work, it is important that those who have established their field of expertise should have control over the sort of reportage they engage in.
All of the reports can be published. The annual report includes information on marking schemes and reports on subjects which have been collected on an ongoing basis.
Each year annual reports focus on a subject of particular importance, which becomes a major part of such reports. For example, this year the Irish language, literacy levels, etc., might fall under the spotlight. It is important that we can be confident of the system. The information collected should not have to be vetted by the Department's PR section and approved by the Minister in order that a nice annual report can be produced. I would dispense with the Minister's report if the inspectorate's report could replace it.
The work of the inspectorate goes to the heart of quality issues. The chief inspector has a good reputation and will be seen as someone of standing whose comments will be appreciated and respected.
Debate adjourned.