JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 15 Jul 2004

On-Line Primary Teaching Courses: Presentations.

Chairman

We have five groups of witnesses as follows: from CHOICE, Dr. Peadar Cremin, Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, and Mr. Pauric Travers, President of St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra; from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, Mr. John Carr and Mr. Austin Corcoran; from the Federation of University Teachers, Mr. Daire Keogh and Ms Philomena Donnelly; from the Union of Students in Ireland, Mr. Rory Hearne and Ms Heledd Fychan, and from the Alliance of Professionalism in Teaching, Ms Alison Passmore and Mr. P.J. O'Meara. We meet today to discuss on-line primary teacher training. I welcome all delegations to the meeting. The usual format is to allow each delegation ten minutes to make a presentation.

Before we begin, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses before it. I also remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or him identifiable. We will begin by hearing the presentations and by then having a questions and answers session.

Dr. Pauric Travers

On behalf of the Conference of Heads of Irish Colleges of Education, I welcome the opportunity to make a presentation on e-learning and initial teacher education. This is an area of considerable public interest and we congratulate the committee on its initiative in organising this session. It is a matter of regret that there was not an opportunity for consultation and debate on the issue before rather than after significant decisions were made. It is also a matter of regret that Hibernia was unable to provide a representative for this morning's session.

It may be useful to provide some background information about the Conference of Heads of Irish Colleges of Education, CHOICE, which represents five primary teacher education colleges, namely, Church of Ireland College, Rathmines, Froebel College, Blackrock, Coláiste Mhuire, Marino, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, and St Patrick's College, Drumcondra. It also represents St. Mary's University College, Belfast, and three second level teacher education colleges.

Individually and collectively, we offer a range of courses in the area of education ranging from initial teacher education to continuing professional development courses for teachers, with awards including the BEd degree, graduate certificates and diplomas, MEd degree and doctoral degrees. Irish children in schools up and down the country are taught by teachers educated in our colleges. The country has some 25,000 primary teachers, approximately 24,000 of whom have been educated in our primary education colleges.

Faced by the major increase in demand for teachers over the past number of years, the colleges have increased their output significantly. In 1999, the primary colleges of education produced 500 teachers. This year, the figure is close to 1,500. The colleges now produce five times as many teachers as they did a decade ago. This has been achieved without any significant capital investment. The colleges are committed to meeting agreed needs for teacher supply in a timely and flexible fashion consistent with the maintenance of the highest standards.

It is widely acknowledged that Ireland is fortunate in the high quality of its teachers. This is unusual internationally and cannot be taken for granted. In responding flexibly and innovatively to new challenges, it is important that nothing is done to endanger that position. This is fundamental to the social and economic well-being of the country. When an e-learning course was mooted for teacher education in Scotland, policy makers decided that only a closely monitored pilot project with a limited intake should be approved.

On 1 August 2003, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, announced that he was granting recognition to a new primary teacher training course accredited by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, and delivered by a private commercial company, Hibernia College. The colleges of education, initially privately and then publicly, expressed serious concerns at this development. It was, and still is our view, that this poses a significant threat to the quality of teacher education, to the professional status of teaching and, ultimately, to the well-being of Irish primary school children. We have called for the pausing of further intakes into this course pending a full review, and we do so again today. Such a step would be prudent and fair to all concerned, not least children in schools. That position has been supported by a unanimous resolution passed at the INTO congress last Easter in Tralee.

We should stress that our reservations do not stem from any lack of enthusiasm for innovation and change. Over the past decade, the teacher education colleges have changed more rapidly than any area in the education system. Our staff have been in the vanguard of both curriculum reform in general and the development and dissemination of new innovative approaches to the integration of information and communication technologies in education in particular. We have taken a leading role in such pioneering projects as Teachnet and Empowering Minds in collaboration with Media Lab Europe. We promote extensive use of information and communications technologies within our existing teacher education programmes, and we deliver a growing number of professional development courses for teachers using distance education and e-learning. We are committed to extending such provision as part of the continuing professional development of teachers.

We have no reservations about e-learning as such. It is an enormously valuable tool. What is at issue is how and when it should be used and by whom. We have profound reservations about the appropriateness of on-line delivery for initial teacher education, which of necessity undermines teacher formation which has been at the heart of the Irish approach to teacher education.

The colleges are committed to a model of teacher formation which allows future teachers to come into a third level community of learning where they grow and develop as people and as teachers. Teaching is a caring profession. The interpersonal dimension is vital. Every parent understands instinctively that it is the interpersonal relationship between pupil and teacher that is crucial to the learning experience. Student teachers should be helped to grow in their understanding of children and of child psychology as well as in their understanding of their professional role as part of a vibrant community of students and staff. We question whether this is possible where the main form of delivery is on-line. We also question the extent to which it is possible to ensure student teachers have acquired the minimum competencies necessary to teach areas such as physical education, PE, art and language learning, especially with regard to Irish.

We also have serious concerns in other areas, including the accreditation process and the erosion of quality and standards. We have made a detailed submission to the Department of Education and Science on these matters and propose to summarise them briefly here. The OECD has concluded in a review of e-learning that the central challenge is the protection of standards and that this can be difficult to achieve without the involvement of well-established providers.

I wish to raise some issues concerning the policy on teacher education. The accreditation of the Hibernia programme by HETAC is a radical departure from previous practice. The report, Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century, which was prepared by an expert and representative review body in 2002 and which made wide-ranging recommendations in regard to upgrading teacher education, did not make any recommendations on and does not give any support for the introduction of a part-time or on-line programme for initial teacher education.

It is misleading to view this new on-line course as a necessary response to a shortage of teachers. Hibernia's enrolment has led to a curtailment of the intake to the colleges of education on the postgraduate conversion programme. The colleges are satisfied that they can meet the demand for additional teachers and have repeatedly offered to enter into discussions with the Department on alternative models of teacher education were such requested, for example, modular courses.

Hibernia was granted approval under Section 21(4) of the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999. We have asked the Department of Education and Science to review the manner in which the Act has been applied in this instance, with a view to ascertaining whether this is an appropriate section under which such a programme should be validated. We have sought to raise directly with HETAC concerns regarding its responsibilities. The assessment panel established by HETAC did not include an independent international expert in the area of third level teacher education. This absence is striking. The four-person panel was made up of a programme validation expert, an expert in e-learning, a teacher and a retired teacher.

In its programme validation submission to HETAC, Hibernia proposed that it be allowed an intake of 100 in year one and a further intake of 100 in year two. Presumably, HETAC made its decisions on Hibernia's capacity to deliver on the basis of this level of intake. However, this proposal has already been breached and no regulation would seem to apply to Hibernia's enrolment. For a private sector company with no prior experience in the delivery of any teacher education programme to be given the freedom to take in unrestricted numbers in its initial years borders on the reckless. It is difficult to reconcile this with the tight control maintained by the Department over the intake to the public sector colleges of teacher education.

The panel of assessors appointed on behalf of HETAC reported that a large number of students on the course would already be teaching in primary schools and that this would facilitate the modules in teaching methodologies, particularly teaching practice. They went on to recommend to HETAC that "all students in the initial cohort of students recruited to the programme would be involved in primary education". We understand that this recommendation has not been adhered to.

In its programme validation submission to HETAC, Hibernia listed the lecturing expertise available for the programme. Claims that those associated with the programme are leaders in the field of teacher education are not substantiated. Hibernia also highlighted the role played by its academic committee, consisting "of experienced academics and practitioners'' whose function was "to oversee the development of the programme". Of the nine persons listed as members of the academic committee, at least one third later denied involvement.

We note also that the Higher Education Authority has issued a public statement drawing attention to the factually incorrect claims made by Hibernia College in the mission statement which Hibernia submitted to HETAC. A number of pages of Hibernia's programme validation submission relate to the primary curriculum support programme of the Department of Education and Science, DES, and to delivery of methodological aspects of Hibernia's programme by primary curriculum support programme, PCSP, staff. The appendix to that report lists "PCSP Tutors" in place of the names of lecturers-tutors responsible for teaching methodologies. The panel of assessors appointed on behalf of HETAC concluded that this involvement by PCSP staff in the delivery of the programme was "considered essential to its success". We have been assured by the DES that the PCSP has no formal involvement with Hibernia and that statements to the contrary are incorrect.

We have also expressed concerns in relation to entry requirements, selection procedures, delivery through a number of publicly funded education centres and employment of students in schools while pursuing their course. We believe that the introduction of a part-time programme, which in the space of 18 months will grant a qualification similar to that which is granted by the colleges for full-time study of the same duration, necessarily represents a significant dilution of standards. Whereas the recent expert review of teacher education recommended increasing the duration of teacher training programmes, in this case it is now proposed to cut them. We see this development as an attack on the professional status of teachers and as a first move towards de-professionalising teaching.

In our view, the programme content submitted for validation by Hibernia was weak and deficient in numerous respects, not least its coverage of the knowledge base of teachers and the content of programmes of teacher education. We have drawn attention to programme weakness in areas, including courses in classroom management, teaching studies, assessment and evaluation and the total reliance on the primary curriculum 1999 as the basis for the teaching methodologies. It seems extraordinary that the programme was given accreditation without any information on course content in the areas listed in our submission. It would appear that the courses in some of these areas have not yet been written and that course writers are only now being recruited. We have also expressed concern about the lack of library support for the programme.

The provision of teacher education in the colleges of education takes place in a socially interactive academic environment which promotes advances in knowledge, research and professional understanding and which actively reaches out to society, both locally and nationally, and has particular regard for the disadvantaged. We believe that the accreditation granted to Hibernia was based on incomplete and, in some cases, misleading information. We repeat our call for a pause in its intake pending a full review.

Chairman

Thank you. I invite the INTO to make its presentation.

Mr. Austin Corcoran

I am president of the INTO. Mr. Carr and I will share the presentation with the permission of the committee. I am president of the INTO this year. To put in context the reasons for our attendance today, the primary education system has been in place since 1831. The Irish National Teachers' Organisation was founded 37 years later in 1868 to defend and look after the professional and trade union interests of teachers. From that initial period until today, the questions of teacher qualification, accreditation and education have been at the top of the INTO's agenda.

Initially we had to deal with the problem of hedge-school masters and mistresses coming into the system and that lasted up to the early 1900s. The monitorial system was then put in place and some of those people are still alive today. That system was in place in the 1900s. The two-year national teacher diploma was in place from the early 1900s until the 1970s and I am one of those graduates. From the 1970s onwards this was replaced by the three-year degree course. At each point along the line, the INTO made representations to Governments and over the years, an element of partnership has entered into the equation whereby we consult, negotiate and agree matters. What happened in August 2003 was a breach of that partnership. The INTO executive was not consulted about this issue. There was no negotiation and agreement was not reached with the INTO in respect of what transpired. Mr. Carr will proceed to explain the finer details.

Mr. John Carr

I wish to state at the outset that the INTO does not consider the issue of on-line learning for teachers to be an issue requiring a simplistic "yes" or "no" answer. Clearly this is a developing area where new possibilities and opportunities are being created. New realities have been formed in education as in any other sphere of human development. This has always been the way, but perhaps in recent years the speed of change has accelerated. Our challenge, therefore, is not to prevent change or stifle developments, but neither is it to blindly accept every proposal for change in the name of progress. The challenge is to be vigilant and to ensure that change and innovation in education will benefit teachers, parents, the wider society and, most importantly, pupils.

The INTO has always taken an active part in the collaborative policy-making that has characterised Irish education, particularly in recent decades. This opportunity was not afforded to us by the Department of Education and Science in respect of the issue of on-line learning because there was an absence of public debate on the issue. We welcome this opportunity to speak to the committee. Like the colleges of education, the INTO regrets there was no collaboration between the partners in education and no public discussion of the issue.

The INTO represents both the trade union and professional interests of primary teachers. It has one key concern, namely, the maintenance of quality in teacher education, thereby ensuring the continued confidence of the public in the service that our members deliver. That confidence has been earned through the service of primary teachers. A key component of our members' ability to deliver a quality service is the quality of the teacher education they have received. Teacher education is not an academic debate but something that impacts directly on the quality of the teacher in the classroom.

The INTO has no role in the recognition of courses of teacher education because that is not its job. It is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science. However, as an organisation recognising the contribution that teacher education makes to quality, we have always made comment, provided analysis and demanded change and improvement. We have always insisted that every development and innovation be well planned, implemented with care and evaluated with precision. We have done so in the case of on-line courses for teachers. That is the reason that, in November 2003, the INTO demanded that the on-line learning course recognised in August 2003 be fully evaluated by the Department of Education and Science and by an independent review group comprising teachers and experts in the fields of teacher education and distance learning.

When new courses are provided by the universities, the secondary teachers' registration council appoints a visiting committee to evaluate the course to ascertain whether it is suitable for the delivering of particular subjects in university. Why does this same evaluation not take place at primary level? The difficulty is that the Department of Education and Science is the competent body to recognise teacher education and there is no teaching council or primary teachers' registration council.

On that basis, the INTO believes that an expert group should be set up to evaluate the courses. We reiterate this demand and seek that there be no further intake to courses of teacher education using this method of delivery pending a full evaluation of this form of teacher training. That is the least that teachers should be entitled to. The INTO requests this committee to send such a message to Government.

I wish to outline the INTO view of teacher education. More so than ever, the teacher today is viewed as a professional who accepts the responsibility to meet the needs of pupils. This has implications for teacher preparation. The education of teachers must extend beyond mastery of specific skills and must be concerned with the professional socialisation into the norms and traditions of the profession and the acquisition of values that will inform future practice as teachers.

Professional education places skills and expertise within a wide social perspective. It is not merely to do with training teachers in skills and techniques. It is about learning to think and act like a teacher as much as learning to do things like a teacher. Can this be done on-line?

Teacher education must never limit the student teacher simply to acquiring high levels of subject knowledge and classroom competence, although such requirements are essential for teachers. The body of knowledge associated with teaching will continue to develop. Teacher education must therefore emphasise the personal development, the growth of communication skills and the growth of self-assurance. Can this be done on-line?

Student teachers must be taught to think for themselves, to examine critically the ideas of others, to articulate their own ideas and to be flexible in their approaches. Teacher education must not seek to perfect pre-determined teaching methods but to develop teachers' confidence in their own abilities to analyse, change and adapt to innovation. Can this be done on-line?

I have asked the committee some questions. If the answers are to be provided, an in-depth review must be carried out by an expert group. There is nothing to be lost from such a review, but a great deal is to be gained. Teacher education should always be the subject of inquiry and comment. Testing, research and analysis are parts of the profession's responsibility. The INTO considers that a review such as that I have suggested would do just that.

Education is one of the pillars of a modern society. The State invests in education every year for the benefit of citizens and the State. There has always been a degree of State control and interest in the education of teachers. The Department of Education and Science is responsible for the proper training of sufficient numbers of primary teachers. Recent efforts in this regard were strongly criticised by Professor John Coolahan of NUI Maynooth as not having been a distinguished feature of the system. In October 2002, a survey carried out by the INTO found that up to 40,000 primary school pupils, or almost 10% of the total pupil cohort, were not being taught by a qualified primary school teacher. It is a scandal. The INTO pointed out that there was a shortfall of 1,600 qualified primary teachers to fill vacant positions. This data proved conclusively the extent of the teacher shortage in primary schools at that time, which had been hidden for a long time.

Hidden shortages are said to exist when teaching is done by someone who is not qualified to teach the subject or to teach at the particular level. In Ireland, many vacancies at primary level are filled by teachers who are trained to teach at second level. Such people have been granted full recognition to teach in primary schools on a temporary basis. Persons who do not have a teaching qualification are also filling vacancies at primary level.

I wish to acknowledge publicly the efforts of the colleges of education in attempting to remedy this problem. They have greatly increased their intake of student teachers in recent years. I congratulate and thank the members of my fellow union, the Irish Federation of University Teachers, for participating in that major contribution to teacher education in this country. In light of the decision of August 2003 to provide for an unlimited supply of teacher training places, however, the INTO is concerned that there is a danger of a return to the days of teacher unemployment in the 1980s, which resulted from a failure to manage the issue correctly. At that time, newly qualified teachers experienced enormous financial and social hardship. The problem was one of the prime reasons cited for the closure of Carysfort College of Education in the 1980s. The INTO considers that a return to such a scenario is likely if intake is not regulated.

The INTO is gravely concerned at the apparently unlimited student intake available to one course provider, while the numbers of places on the postgraduate courses offered by the colleges of education have been severely curtailed. It believes it is wrong and unfair that there is no cap on the numbers on the on-line course. In response to questions on this aspect of the issue, the Minister for Education and Science stated that market forces will decide whether there are jobs for teachers. He argued that people will not pay fees of €5,500 to an on-line provider to obtain a qualification that is not of much use to them. This statement does not take into account that primary school teachers qualify by completing a three-year undergraduate programme, generally speaking. I refer to the BEd degree, which has served primary teachers and primary schools extremely well by producing quality teachers.

If the teaching jobs market is flooded by graduates from an unrestricted on-line course, there is a real danger that potential teachers will think twice about investing three years of their life and a great deal more than €5,500 in an undergraduate teaching qualification. Letting the markets decide is a complete policy reversal on the part of the Department of Education and Science. It represents a foolish departure from accepted policy and practice. There is a need for continuous planning to ensure a proper supply of trained teachers.

A former Minister for Education and Science gave a commitment to the INTO to convene a forum on teacher supply, but the current Minister has not acted on that promise. The INTO considers that to be an error and calls again for the establishment of such a body to examine the issue and plan for a proper supply of teachers. I thank the joint committee for providing the opportunity to discuss this issue. I reiterate the INTO's demand for the establishment of an expert committee to examine the issue of on-line teacher training and for the establishment of a forum on teacher supply.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Corcoran and Mr. Carr. I invite Mr. Daire Keogh of the Irish Federation of University Teachers to address the committee.

Mr. Daire Keogh

The Irish Federation of University Teachers welcomes this opportunity to address the Joint Committee on Education and Science. It is pleased that the joint committee has chosen to examine the issue of on-line teacher education. It appreciates this opportunity to express its serious concerns about recent developments in this area. It looks forward to working with the teaching council, which is an appropriate forum for a fuller discussion of many of the critical issues I will outline.

Members of the federation throughout Ireland are practitioners and pioneers in the use of information technology in education. They are enthusiastic about the possibilities offered by information technology but are conscious that it is a medium rather than an end in itself. The medium is only as valuable as the material it communicates.

The federation is particularly concerned about the decision of the Minister for Education and Science to sanction the 18-month on-line teaching diploma offered by Hibernia College, which is a for-profit company. The unanimous condemnation of the course by the three unions representing those involved in primary education — the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, the Union of Students in Ireland and the Irish Federation of University Teachers — is a significant, albeit unusual, display of solidarity. The three unions have called for an immediate halt to any further intake by Hibernia College, pending an independent review of the course offered by the company and the process of accreditation to which it was exposed. The unions' calls have been ignored by the Department of Education and Science and Hibernia College, which recently closed admissions to its third cohort of students.

The federation opposed this course on pedagogical grounds, arguing in the first instance that Internet-based learning is an inappropriate way to provide initial teacher education. It considers that the medium is limited in this instance, as teacher education is concerned with formation rather than mere information and depends upon human interaction and example. Attempts to represent opponents of the course as protectionist Luddites are facile and without foundation. The federation shares the reservations expressed by the assistant chief inspector of the Department of Education and Science before the new course was sanctioned:

The Internet is an exciting educational medium and has tremendous potential in all areas of education, including teacher education. It is a new medium and experience of its use to deliver substantial parts of a professional training programme are limited. Assertions such as "provides a learning experience that far exceeds traditional modes of pedagogy" are offered in the Hibernia documentation without any supporting evidence. It is therefore very important that there would ongoing monitoring of students' assimilation of the course content, by way of seminars, tutorial assignments, projects and written and practical examinations.

The federation acknowledges that the Hibernia students' teaching practice will be monitored by the Department of Education and Science in a manner that is comparable to the way students from other colleges are examined. When one considers the distance nature of the course, however, it is ironic that students on the Hibernia programme do not have the range and choice of school type available to them in which to practice their teaching skills. Will Hibernia students work with disadvantaged or special needs students? Will they teach in gaelscoileanna or Educate Together schools? Will they be confined to the nearest school willing to accept them? That is one of the limitations of distance and e-learning, sadly.

The federation is not satisfied that the company in question is subject to the normal level of external examination and scrutiny that applies to third level structures. Hibernia students may perform on the day for inspectors in the classroom, but their broader educational attainment and understanding will remain untested until suitably qualified external examiners are appointed to monitor the new course.

The IFUT has serious reservations about the manner in which the course was accredited by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council. Reservations relate particularly to the absence from the board of assessors of any member with experience in teacher education or any internationally recognised educational expert. The IFUT considers it unfortunate that a director of an education centre was included on this board creating a potential conflict of interest as the commercial use of education centres and their facilities constituted an integral part of the Hibernia submission for accreditation.

The IFUT is concerned at the lack of transparency in the accreditation of this company. Uniquely in the third level sector, the Higher Education and Training Awards Council is not designated under the Freedom of Information Act 1997. Accordingly, without a record of the assessors' deliberations, we must infer from the content of the approved programme that they were minimal given the gaping holes in the documentation. Very significant areas of the core syllabus accredited by the council remain unwritten. A year on, it is July 2004 and Hibernia is still attempting to recruit course writers in at least six key areas of teaching methodology. Moreover, while several of the prominent names listed by Hibernia in its submission as staff and academic committee members have emphatically denied any involvement, at no stage in the accreditation process do Higher Education and Training Awards Council assessors appear to have attempted to confirm their involvement with the company.

The Higher Education and Training Awards Council appears to have taken no cognisance of changes in teacher education. While the universal trend is towards the increased professionalisation of teaching with an emphasis on research and teacher education rooted within universities and larger communities of learning, the Hibernia model, in spite of its claims to innovation and modernity, constitutes, ironically, old-style teacher training. It approaches the monitorial style of the 19th century. This is clearly illustrated in the complete absence from its staff of course authors and lecturers and of individuals with research profiles or significant experience in initial teacher education. Instead, the company relies heavily on the part-time assistance of the inservice trainers of the State-funded primary curriculum support programme. Such trainers will contribute to a serious de-skilling of the teaching profession.

The Higher Education and Training Awards Council has failed to take into consideration the conclusions of the Kelleghan report, Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century. This major study, which was funded by the Department of Education and Science, contains 61 recommendations, including the extension of the graduate diploma from 18 months to two years full-time. The Higher Education and Training Awards Council ignored this recommendation from a distinguished group in its rush to approve this untested, part-time programme. In short, the work of the Higher Education and Training Awards Council's panel of assessors was superficial, shoddy and seriously flawed.

The IFUT is alarmed at the willingness of the Department of Education and Science to sanction an untried course, which is offered by a company lacking experience in teacher education, without first testing it in a strictly monitored pilot scheme. It is clear that the decision of the Department of Education and Science to sanction this course was made without regard to educational policy. On the contrary, the sanction flies in the face of policy and practice and appears to be based upon immediate expediency and financial considerations. The IFUT believes that such considerations are short-sighted. The proposal takes no account of the potential damage to the national interest of such an untried scheme, nor is there any recognition of the stated educational objectives outlined in the national development plan.

While supporters argue to the contrary, the Hibernia programme is not offered without expense to the State. The course involves very real costs to the State in that primary curriculum support programme tutors trained and employed in a full-time capacity by the Department of Education and Science will, in effect, staff the Hibernia programme. Moreover, their involvement was deemed essential by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council. As recently as 23 June 2004, each of the 27 newly recruited trainers was invited by an assistant co-ordinator of the primary curriculum support programme on behalf of Hibernia to consider writing or tutoring courses for the company. Does this amount to a hidden State subsidy for a private company?

The IFUT is also concerned that the sanction of this course represents the privatisation of an education provision. The Department of Education and Science has granted a lucrative franchise to train primary teachers to a private, for-profit company, Hibernia. This is a welcome boost to the company which at the time of accreditation was apparently experiencing serious financial difficulties. While the advocates of this development advance the benefits of competition and free-market economics, the sanction of this course served as an opportunity for the Department to reduce significantly the number of graduate entrants to the State-funded colleges of education. In contrast, the Department of Education and Science has placed no limit on the numbers of students this Internet company may enrol in its programmes at €5,500 per head. Not only was this a stealth cut, it had the effect of increasing the market open to the on-line company. In what sense does this represent the operation of market forces?

The IFUT shares the dissatisfaction of the INTO at the failure of the Department of Education and Science to engage with the colleges of education on the establishment of modular courses and alternative entry paths to the teaching profession. IFUT members in the colleges of education demonstrated considerable flexibility and increased student numbers to alleviate teacher shortages. Members supported management attempts to negotiate greater flexibility in the delivery of graduate courses, including the use of distance learning, modular teaching and Internet technology. The management of colleges of education made repeated, unsuccessful requests for meetings with Department of Education and Science officials. Froebel College tabled a fully costed proposal, but all such offers to the Department were ignored in the face of Hibernia's proposal and did not even receive the courtesy of a considered reply.

For each of the reasons outlined, the IFUT calls for a suspension of all further intakes of students to the company's courses pending a thorough and transparent assessment of the on-line programme and the process through which it was sanctioned. We call for the designation of the Higher Education and Training Awards Council under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and seek from the Department of Education and Science meaningful engagement with the issues raised in this submission. We are committed to the appropriate use of information technology in teacher education and look forward to the establishment of the teaching council in the autumn and the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Kelleghan report, Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century.

Ms Heledd Fychan

The Union of Students in Ireland appreciates being invited to put its views to the committee today. The Union of Students in Ireland, or USI, is a confederation of students' unions north and south of the Border which represents the interests of some 250,000 people. The USI is the nationally recognised representative body for students on this island and enjoys a wide interest in the education sector. The vast majority of Ireland's teacher training students are members of the union and we are pleased and honoured to put their expressed views to the committee today.

At its annual congress in March 2004, the Union of Students in Ireland was given a strong mandate by its members to oppose the on-line teaching course for primary teaching supplied by Hibernia College. This presentation aims to outline why this stance was taken and calls on the Government to take a number of steps to address the fundamental problems posed by the introduction of courses of this type. The slogan "education is a right, not a privilege" is one with which most people are familiar. It certainly rings true and unchallenged in the context of primary education. The current Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has emphasised repeatedly the importance of investing in primary education and widening access to education in general. As outlined in its mission statement, the principal function of the Department of Education and Science is to provide high-quality education which will enable individuals to achieve their full potential, participate fully as members of society and contribute to Ireland's social, cultural and economic development. The USI fully supports these aims and considers that high-quality primary education is fundamental to the future of State. Unless we invest in primary education, widening access is impossible as the two undoubtedly go hand in hand.

Privatisation of training courses will not solve the problem. Far from enhancing the quality of teaching, the unseemly rush to adopt new technologies in this way brings with it a whole set of new problems which will be detrimental to the primary education sector. The privatisation of teacher training courses is, in the expressed view of the students of Ireland, a potentially dangerous development. Primary education lies at the core of every state and must be regulated and delivered by it if it is to be of a verifiable standard and value. The training of primary teachers is of the utmost importance to the quality of the education a state provides, and confidence in the quality of the primary teachers the State provides should be a key priority for the Government. It is for parents. Funding needs to be increased for teacher training colleges but, most importantly, it has to be stable. The Government can ensure this is the case much more than any private company. We only need to look at an article in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times that reported on the financial difficulties currently faced by Jarvis and the implications for the building of the Cork School of Music, to see how potentially volatile the private sector can be, to conclude that it would be unwise to take such risks with education.

It should be emphasised that teacher training colleges are not opposed to the idea of offering modular courses for graduates to take full advantage of distance learning and weekend and summer courses. As far back as November 2002, the INTO suggested this idea to the Government and proposals were made by a number of colleges to the Department offering to develop such courses. As far as we are aware, it received no response from the Department of Education and Science, and a few months later, Hibernia was given the go-ahead to start developing its on-line course. This decision was incomprehensible at the time, and we contend is less defensible now. Neither teacher training colleges nor students were consulted on the matter.

Serious questions need to be asked about why extra funding was not given to established teacher training colleges to develop such an initiative, especially as they had expressed an interest in doing so. Funding generated by such courses could well have secured the future of many of these colleges, such as St. Catherine's, which is facing closure. The Government has dramatically reduced the number of students on the postgraduate primary teaching programmes in teacher training colleges in the past year, indicating its unwillingness to invest in the sector. The facts in themselves are quite striking. To take three colleges as an example: St. Patrick's reduced its numbers from 180 in 2002 to 100 in 2003; while both Froebel and Marino were told to halve the number of students from 60 to 30 and a 100 to 50, respectively. This is especially worrying when one considers that Marino had received more than 400 applications for its course.

USI is concerned for the welfare of the students taking the Hibernia course. While we do not doubt the college's commitment and ability to teach, we are concerned that despite paying fees, students do not receive the same level and standard of support they need to effectively complete their studies.

Teacher training colleges have students' unions which offer welfare services, such as health care and counselling for all their students. More fundamentally, they have libraries. Students participating in courses entirely based on a distance or e-learning model do not have access to any of that, which undoubtedly raises grave issues around the student experience, or the lack of support in order to successfully complete the course.

In light of these fundamental problems with accrediting a primary teacher training programme provided by a private organisation, USI calls on the Government to halt development of e-learning teacher education courses. In line with our specific mandate, we specifically call for an end to the Hibernia College programme. Furthermore, USI calls on the Government to investigate, in conjunction with existing teacher training programmes, how best it can develop modular courses that will ensure high quality teaching in addition to support for such students. While investment is required, we believe it is a fundamental funding issue for the Government which should be of utmost priority.

According to Diogenes, an ancient Greek philosopher: "The foundation of every state is the education of its youth." The students of Ireland believe this remains true and we ask the Government to seriously reconsider its position in terms of supporting the Hibernia course for primary teaching. If we are serious about widening access and ensuring high quality teaching in first, second and third level education, we need to oppose privatisation, especially of fundamentally important courses such as teacher training. There is a clear need to invest in the future by extending funding for teacher training colleges.

The Union of Students in Ireland contends that the best way for a student to learn how to teach is at one of our nation's excellent teacher training colleges. The provision of stable, verifiable courses taught to a high standard in an environment designed for learning and equipped to deal with the welfare and educational needs of the student is a priority for the students we represent. This should also be the committee's priority.

Ms Alison Passmore

I speak on behalf of the Alliance for Professionalism in Teaching, APT. APT was initially set up to address the issue of on-line teacher training courses. I am currently a postgraduate student of St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra. A significant number of my fellow students expressed concern at the quality of the on-line teacher training course provided by Hibernia College because of the danger that it would threaten the professionalism of teaching. Many students were shocked to find that HETAC awarded a full licence to Hibernia without prior pilot schemes, reviews or consultation with existing colleges. In a press statement issued last November by the INTO, John Carr referred to the implementation of an untested course as, at best, unwise and, at its worst, foolhardy.

Mr. P. J. O’Meara

I add to Ms Passmore's point by saying many of our classmates have come to teaching from other professions. They said the manner in which the Hibernia course was introduced would not have been allowed in other professions such as law, accountancy etc.

Our lecturers and college staff repeatedly emphasised to us that teaching is a complex business that cannot be learnt from a distance. An individual education plan is as complex as any medical diagnosis compiled by a doctor. One expert said that teachers are responsible for making up to 30 key decisions per hour that impact on the lives of children.

Ms Passmore

On Mr. O'Meara's point about the individual education plan, IEP, this is a fairly complex document in which one must consider, among other things, the pupil, the special needs assistant, SNA, the class and the principal. One has to work with a community; this is not something one can learn from a document, it comes through experience and interaction with others. I question whether Hibernia can provide that kind of expertise through experience to the same degree as other colleges.

The Department of Education and Science currently provides funding on an annual basis to the traditional colleges for the postgraduate courses in education. If the Department has a quality concern in regard to these courses it has the option to withdraw funding. What procedures are in place to address quality issues should they to arise in the case of Hibernia? Is there a safeguard? Are procedures in place that can be enforced if such a quality concern should arise?

There is no international expert in education on the HETAC panel, although an international expert is present in the areas of law and medicine. Should we be satisfied that this is not the case in the area of teacher training? I have serious reservations about that.

Another area of concern for us was the accreditation process. Many students expressed concern that it was secretive and seedy. We would like to know if all members of the panel were independent. Was the financial situation of Hibernia College examined and reviewed? Was the report compiled and, if so, could it be made public?

Last November 2,000 people took to the streets under the umbrella group of APT. These included students from Marino, Froebel, Mary Immaculate and St. Pat's, as well as lecturers, teachers and parents. We presented the Department of Education and Science a document outlining our concerns on this issue, which mainly related to quality issues and the threat we felt it might pose for the professionalism of teaching. To date, we have not received any response from the Department on this issue. Furthermore, on the same day, we presented a similar document to the INTO calling for its support in raising our concerns. At the Easter INTO Congress, a motion was passed which states its position on this issue. I would like Mr. P. J. O'Meara to elaborate on this.

Mr. O’Meara

We would not be here this morning if a teaching council had been established by now. I know the legislation allowing for a teaching council to be formed has passed through the Oireachtas but I cannot see how any self-respecting, independent, fully-resourced professional body would have allowed this training or preparation course to go through without proper consultation and proper evaluation and monitoring of the course being established.

I am disappointed that there is no representative present from the Department of Education and Science.

Chairman

None was invited.

Mr. O’Meara

I hope they will be sent a transcript of this meeting. The Department has been cent-wise and euro-foolish on this issue and it is trying to tackle the issue of teacher supply on the cheap. We all know that hundreds of millions of euros are invested in primary teacher education. The people we are relying on to deliver that service are qualified primary teachers. It is not satisfactory that roughly 25% of the student primary teachers in the State will be prepared under a regime over which there are so many question marks. It is not fair on them. I have no issue with the students in Hibernia College. I am a new entrant into teaching and I would not wish to stop anyone else entering the profession but the manner in which this issue has been dealt with is not fair. Most other initiatives in education are brought forward on a pilot-project basis and evaluated before they are mainstreamed.

A total of 180 students started in Hibernia College last October, another 180 began in February and another 180 will probably begin in September, amounting to a total of 540 students out of the 1,500 students the College of Education is producing every year. At a time when there is great concern about achieving value for money for public expenditure, I believe this is a disgrace.

On the INTO, as somebody who worked as an unqualified teacher in a primary school before I began my course in St. Pat's I share the objective of wanting to see no unqualified teachers in the system. I hope to start work as a primary teacher in September and I hope I will do a much better job as a result of having done my course. One cannot separate the two issues of teacher supply and quality of teacher preparation as they are interrelated. If the increased numbers were to be brought through the system of teacher preparation already in place I would have more confidence that teacher quality and professional standards in teaching were not being diluted. As matters stand, putting 25% of student teachers through an untested course the worth of which has not been proven is not satisfactory.

The INTO leadership has been indecisive in its defence of the teaching profession. This indecision contrasts with the overwhelming support for the INTO motion approved by its members at its congress last April in Tralee in County Kerry. The motion is worded as follows:

Congress:

(a) condemns the cutbacks in the current intake into the graduate diploma courses run by the colleges of education;

(b) demands an independent review of the current new on-line course, this review to examine the process, accreditation, the quality of course delivered and the implications of the privatisation of teacher education for future teacher supply;

(c) demands that no further on-line courses take place or receive recognition until this review has been completed.

This is putting it up to the leadership of the INTO because Hibernia College, by going ahead with this course in September, is acting in defiance of a motion approved by the membership of INTO Congress in April. While I welcome its call for the Government and Department of Education and Science to act, its own Congress has called on the INTO leadership to take action by not recognising or refusing to co-operate with this course until an independent review has been completed. We know from the attitude of the Department that it has a very hard-headed approach to this matter. It sees nothing wrong with the introduction of this on-line distance-learning course in teacher preparation. It will not introduce an independent review as matters stand. Something must change. All the groups who have spoken at this committee have sought an independent review. The best chance of having such a review commissioned and conducted is if the INTO actively refuses to co-operate with this course.

I am very disappointed Hibernia College is not present this morning to speak on this issue. I would have welcomed the opportunity to hear what it had to say. Will the members of the committee ask the present representatives of the INTO what course of action the INTO will take, not what they will say? The INTO executive is meeting very soon and this issue will be on the agenda. It is all very well asking the Department and the committee to do something but the INTO has a responsibility to intervene. We might ask the INTO representatives whether they would like to have their own children educated by teachers prepared by an on-line distance learning course or teachers who have been prepared by a tried and tested teacher education programme.

Chairman

I thank all the groups for their presentations. For the benefit of the witnesses, I should state that we considered this issue at considerable length previously when HETAC and the Department of Education and Science appeared before the committee. At that meeting, members asked most of the questions which were posed by the people making the presentations today.

Hibernia College will appear before the committee on 30 September. When we have heard the witnesses' responses to the questions, the committee will decide whether any action is warranted and, if so, in what form it should be taken. I can safely assure witnesses that the committee will not interfere in the internal workings of the INTO although, having said that, I should declare an interest as a member of the organisation. In any case, it is not the manner in which the committee operates. In so far as there are issues to be raised with the Department of Education and Science, HETAC or any of the bodies answerable, we will consider whether that is the appropriate course of action.

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome the deputations to the committee. They have made interesting and valuable contributions. We were disappointed to learn last week that Hibernia College was not making itself available today as it is the invisible partner. We appreciate that other people have postponed appointments to be with us today. It is a long time before 30 September and I wish to record that I am not happy about the fact that the college representatives are not present. I know very little about Hibernia College, I carry no flag for it and I want to hear more from it. From Hibernia College's point of view, it is regrettable that we rely on the information of the witnesses before us today to learn about its on-line training course.

Mr. Travers made a valuable statement to the committee this morning when he stated that: "It is widely acknowledged that Ireland is fortunate in the high quality of its teachers. This is unusual internationally and cannot be taken for granted." This statement should be in bold print to acknowledge the excellent teaching force in all our schools. He referred specifically to the primary school teaching sector, the high quality of which has not come easily. Historically, the quality and content of the courses and the diversity which was introduced to all the training colleges was brought to the classrooms where all children benefited, particularly those in restricted accommodation and with other problems. Despite the problems, primary schools provide a wonderful learning experience for children.

This is the case partly because of the courses run by our colleges, which I take the opportunity to thank for their work on behalf of the country. It is the most valuable investment the Government and Parliament can make in the future of our citizens. It is also the case because of the high calibre of people admitted to our colleges. I am often critical because it is so difficult for people to be admitted to colleges because they are insistent they admit the best applicants. They are trained and go on to teach our children and learn with them until they leave primary school and enter secondary school.

The genuine care of pupils is not learned in the college but through teachers' experience of life. This attribute is obviously detected in the interviews undertaken by the colleges. The students accepted are aware of the profound impact they make on the fabric of children's experiences. From my visits to primary schools throughout the country, I am aware of how fortunate we are to have such primary teachers.

When applicants to education courses in our colleges are screened, are investigations carried out to establish their clean records in respect of their interaction with children, and how is this done? This is a controversial but important issue which must be addressed. Does such screening form part of the criteria set down for admissions to courses such as the BEd? If Hibernia College were before the committee, I would ask that question of its representatives.

Why is it so difficult to get into the colleges? I may have already asked that question but I know of people who applied to take the BEd as a postgraduate course and have been bitterly disappointed. A woman with an honours degree from UCC, two years' experience of learning support in various schools and excellent references came to my constituency office this week to tell me she had been unsuccessful in her interview. I acknowledge that the standard is high but it can destroy people's confidence when they do not gain entry to such quality postgraduate training courses. Will the witnesses address this issue?

Again, we must rely on the witnesses, who know more than I about Hibernia College, to answer a question. I understand the college has already run two teacher training courses and the third is about to begin in October, the closing date for which passed recently. What is the progress of the teachers who have already completed those courses? How are they doing in the schools?

Deputy Enright

I welcome the individuals and groups before the committee. It is a pity Hibernia College is not present. Its representatives were invited and it is fair to say that they would have been facilitated with a number of different dates on which we could have held this meeting. However, they are not here and are instead due to come before the committee on 30 September. This leaves the committee in the position that we can question one side of the story but cannot compare it with the other, which is not the most effective way for us to do business. Therefore, the witnesses may feel they cannot answer some of my questions and that they should be more correctly addressed to Hibernia College. We may have to revert to the witnesses after we get Hibernia College's side of the story.

The Chairman already referred to the fact that we discussed this matter on 23 October 2003 with Ms Margaret Kelly from the Department of Education and Science and Mr. Séamus Purcell from HETAC, who were before the committee to discuss the recognition of qualification and experience regulation, which was the subject of an EU directive. They were not present to discuss the issue at hand and, judging from their initial responses, they were not expecting to be questioned on the matter. Therefore, while we asked questions, it was not the most satisfactory forum.

On 2 October last, I asked the Minister for Education and Science about consultation. He was quite honest and stated that they did not engage in any consultation with anyone about the matter. He also stated that the Department of Education and Science is responsible for deciding whether a person can be a teacher or not, but that it is not its role to approve a course. HETAC gave us an outline of what it does, on which members can make a judgment as to whether the body does what it says it does. Its submission stated that the applicant would name the institution, what it is, where it comes from, what it is doing, why it was set up, the programme it proposes, whether it carried out market research and the need for the programme, the curriculum, the type of assessment process to be undertaken, how it will be delivered, the facilities for its delivery and the qualifications of the staff who deliver the programme. Mr. Purcell went on to state that he was satisfied that all the necessary processes were followed in the case of this programme. This is HETAC's first real experience with on-line teacher training. The other two courses it has dealt with are criminology and public administration. Obviously people who work in these areas do not come face to face with the public to the same extent as teachers. I know the information obtained from HETAC has been somewhat limited. I ask the representatives, from their experience so far, whether they feel that the necessary procedures were carried out. Are they in a position to say that?

In the various presentations there has been some disagreement, as a matter of principle, over whether primary school teacher training should be delivered on-line. We must get over that, however, because different people will have to decide that. Where do the on-line courses differ from the courses offered by the colleges? Are there sufficient meetings among pupils in the education centres? The representatives probably think there are not.

It is easy enough to learn a subject on-line but teaching it is a different matter. One of the presentations mentioned physical education, PE, art and language learning. I question also whether special needs education training can be sufficiently dealt with in this way. We did not really get into the comparisons between the courses but, from our perspective, that is important.

I have a question for the INTO, but I do not intend to ask the question proposed by Mr. O'Meara because my job is to question the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, as opposed to the INTO and other organisations. The Chairman received a letter from Hibernia which stated that the INTO is on the accreditation board of HETAC, but Mr. Carr said that the INTO has no role in the recognition of teacher training. Perhaps he could address that matter. Perhaps the INTO could have a representative on the board but no role in the course itself.

Ms Margaret Kelly said on the day she spoke to the committee that the Department was not funding Hibernia and had no role in limiting its intake. However, on the subject of the provision of teacher training on an e-learning basis, she stated that all colleges were invited to make applications for that process and that the main teacher training colleges did not respond while Hibernia did. I spoke to some of the representatives about the modular and conversion courses before this ever became an issue. The Minister stated that discussions were taking place with the Department. During these discussions, did the issue of on-line teacher training ever arise? Ms Kelly said, on 23 October 2003, that a meeting was to take place between the Department and the colleges on the issue. Did this meeting take place?

Deputy O’Sullivan

I will begin by referring to the points made by Deputy Hoctor about the quality of teachers in the Irish system. This is the background to the issue and the reason it is so important to examine it as carefully as we can. We must ensure that if there is to be on-line training of teachers, we know exactly what is happening in terms of quality and monitoring. This is a crucial question for the future of our children and it is one of the most important issues we have dealt with.

I agree it is unfortunate that we are dealing with this issue on a one-sided basis because no representative of Hibernia is present. Hibernia should have made an effort to be represented when all the other groups made the effort. It has been equally difficult for the other groups to send their senior people. I have serious reservations about allowing representatives from Hibernia to come here on their own and give their side of the story.

If we were talking about a private body delivering education for doctors, gardaí, physiotherapists or any other publicly provided service, there would be a major outcry. There would be extensive questioning about quality and standard and how trainees will fit in with those trained through the traditional methods. It is important that we keep up with this issue until we get to the bottom of it. As Deputy Enright said, we have already had a meeting with HETAC and a departmental representative.

There are certainly outstanding questions that need to be reiterated. Deputy Enright has already referred to some of them. She read a quote from Ms Kelly, the departmental representative, to the effect that the Department had no control over the numbers. Surely somebody must have control over the numbers. I do not know whether any of the representatives know the answer to this. They are probably not the people to ask. The original submission said that Hibernia would be enrolling 100 students per year, but it appears from various figures we have obtained that there could be up to 200 per year because of double intake and so on. How can this go on? Can we indefinitely allow as many students into the system as a private organisation wants? These may not be questions for today's witnesses but they are certainly questions for us as members of the Joint Committee on Education and Science. I and the other members of the committee intend to ask these questions when we get a chance to talk to Hibernia and, more importantly, to the Department of Education and Science and HETAC in the autumn.

Some people have already asked about how the training in colleges compares with on-line training. What about the practical aspect of teacher training? A reference was made to students obtaining teaching practice in a variety of schools and the question of whether students at Hibernia would have that variety of training. Could the representatives of the colleges explain what this variety of teaching practice involves? Another important issue is the monitoring of the programme to see whether the courses are of the quality they are supposed to be. What sort of monitoring is there of the courses within the traditional colleges? We need to know the yardstick against which we are judging Hibernia.

The point was made that the concept of on-line teacher training should have been discussed before anyone was given the opportunity of delivering it. There should have been public discourse on whether the training was appropriate for primary education. There are also issues of competition. Why should only one private company be allowed to provide this training? Should it have been put out to tender? Should there be other companies doing this so that they can be compared with each other? Should students have a choice in all this?

There is also the question of equality of access for students. Perhaps the USI representatives would like to take up this point. The cost of taking this course is €5,000 or more. Is there any kind of access for the children of lower income families? Questions of access are relevant right across the board. Has either USI or the Alliance for Professionalism in Teaching had any discussion with people on the course about their views on its contents? Somebody quoted the Minister for Education and Science as saying that the marketplace should determine the numbers. This is disturbing. This is about the teaching of our children and should surely be a matter of quality rather than quantity.

Most of the questions we are interested in asking should be directed at Hibernia, not at the witnesses, but we will do that in the future. It is a pity we cannot deal with it today. Some people raised the development of the subject matter in the Hibernia courses and stated that some of the courses had not yet been written or fully developed. If this is the case, it is a serious cause for concern. Perhaps we could have some further information about this. We will also need to ask the representatives of Hibernia about this when they appear before the committee.

I thank the delegations for their input. Perhaps we should apologise as well for the fact that we have not been able to get Hibernia to attend. We certainly made the effort and it turned us down.

Deputy Crowe

I welcome the delegations. The difficulty in dealing with this question is that many of us want to see change occurring overnight. The Department of Education and Science is not exactly renowned for its speedy decisions. However, there appears to be unseemly haste with this on-line course. Important questions must be asked about it. Our concern is that, given the haste and the fact that it is full steam ahead with this course, the quality of teachers emerging could be undermined. It seems to suggest that some type of "yellow pack" teachers will appear in the near future. It has happened in supermarkets, airlines have followed that model and now it appears teaching is doing the same.

I would like to ask about international norms in this area. It was suggested earlier that a pilot study was undertaken in Scotland. What are the international norms for these courses? The issue of why the Department of Education and Science did not engage with the colleges of education raises serious questions. I do not believe anyone here can answer that, but it might be useful if someone could throw some light on it. Why is there no monitoring of students on the courses? The people who can answer that are not present. Could the issue of the cost to the State be further developed? There is an argument that the cost to the State is not great. Perhaps that could be developed further. How much are we talking about? The argument being put across in the media is that the teachers and many of the students on these courses are pulling up the ladder, so to speak, because they do not want enrolment of the poor unfortunate people who cannot undertake a three-year course. Perhaps this could be addressed as well as part of the submission. That was a topic of discussion on many radio programmes.

I do not understand why there is no cap on intake levels, which would appear to have been breached. Has there been any response from the Department on that? The delegates referred to a full evaluation of the course, the need for an independent review and so on. Are the Minister and his Department expected to reply to that? Perhaps delegates could expand on the fact that HETAC is not covered under the Freedom of Information Act. How are such bodies to be designated? What are the difficulties? It is extraordinary that Hibernia claims as part of its profile to have on its academic committee people who deny being on it. It raises more questions as to why a private company should be given a monopoly in this area, particularly if, as indicated, it has been experiencing financial difficulties and so on. It is puzzling why the development of this type of course should be vested in a company that has no experience. This is a question for Hibernia, but perhaps the delegates might be able to throw some light on it.

Deputy Andrews

I welcome all the groups to the meeting. I am glad Hibernia has not attended because it would mean we would be here until next week. That is just a glib comment. It is somewhat cheeky of it not to be present. There is no reason its representatives could not attend an Oireachtas committee hearing.

I wish to begin with the issue of private education for professions. There are private educational institutions for professions, including the legal profession. Doctors are educated in the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, barristers in the Kings Inns etc. There is private education in the so-called higher professions. This is not unusual. On a philosophical basis, this is the current state of play. The real issue is not between private and public education. It is about on-line teaching and whether that is acceptable.

Hibernia says it has 55% education on-site and 45% on-line. There is, therefore, that dimension referred to by many of the speakers. The first speaker, Mr. Travers, referred to the lack of an interpersonal dimension as the real problem. Then the INTO referred to the lack of professional socialisation as a real problem, yet there is this 55% on-site, face-to-face, interpersonal element. Perhaps the delegates could tease out in their answers why that is not sufficient. We must accept that because Hibernia is not here. Perhaps the delegates have information that undermines that claim. I would like them to address the issue as to why this does not take care of the problem referred to as the key to all this.

Mr. Travers referred to the pilot project in Scotland. Do we know the outcome of that and whether it has been successful? That might give us some indication in the absence of Hibernia graduates coming into the system whether the speakers' claims about all the negative effects are valid. Has there been a negative effect in terms of quality and the welfare of children, which I would have thought to be the primary concern rather than anything else? Are there lessons to be learned from that pilot project in the absence of a completed Hibernia course here in Ireland to refer to? The claims made about the accreditation process are grave and must be taken seriously. Mr. Travers said that misleading information had been provided. That is a serious allegation, all the more so if it is being suggested that it was deliberately misleading. I will not put words in his mouth and he can deal with that question in his answers, but there are serious question marks over the accreditation process. It is something the committee will deal with in its own time.

There appears to be a plot and a sub-plot. As far as I can see, the main plot involved a battle over funding for graduate diplomas. The Minister wants the cheap way and delegates want to preserve the old way. Mr. Keogh, in the IFUT submission, argued that it was a "stealth cut", which is a new one to me. We have had stealth taxes etc., but a stealth cut is something I have never heard of before. It seems to suggest that the Minister is trying to slyly cut back on funding, according to this submission. We do not have specific figures on most of the issues raised. This is not the fault of delegates, but rather is owing to the absence of Hibernia, which is rather cheeky, as I have said. We have various figures and Deputy O'Sullivan discussed them. One report indicates that 192 students are enrolling. Mr. O'Meara said there were 180 this September and another 180 in February next year as well. The Department says it has no role in limiting intake. To have a proper debate, we need to come to grips with whether this is, as described, a stealth cut or whether Hibernia is a private institution educating professionals, as it claims it has already done in other areas. Perhaps the delegates could deal with some of those questions.

Deputy Stanton

I welcome the delegations and thank them for their submissions. There is much food for thought in them. I note what I believe is a contradiction in the arguments put to the committee by two different groups. The IFUT delegation claims the course will incur significant costs for the State and that primary curriculum support programme, PCSP, tutors, trained and employed in a full-time capacity by the Department of Education and Science, are effectively staffing the Hibernia College programme. The CHOICE representatives, however, say they have been reassured by the Department of Education and Science that the PCSP has no formal involvement with Hibernia College and that statements to the contrary are incorrect. Deputy Andrews also spoke about the potential cost to the State, and it is vital that the Department should clarify its role and say whether it is providing assistance to the Hibernia College programme. If PCSP tutors are involved with training teachers for Hibernia College, what is their role, if any, with regard to the traditional teacher training colleges?

It is amazing that no pilot project was conducted here and I am interested to hear of the experience of such projects in Scotland and elsewhere. Has this type of educational programme been put in place anywhere in the world apart from Scotland and are the delegations aware of the results that have been achieved with any such programmes? Some of us are blue in the face from seeking information regarding the status of various pilot projects from the Department. Many programmes are piloted to death. A vital programme for autistic children in a County Cork school, for example, has been repeatedly piloted when it should be well established at this stage. However, there was no pilot for this initiative, so far as I am aware, although we might discover one at a later date.

The IFUT delegation contends that teaching is as much concerned with formation as information and this goes to the core of today's discussion. Deputy Andrews observed the claim of Hibernia College that 55% of its graduate diploma in primary education programme takes place on-site and 45% on-line. Perhaps the IFUT and the other delegations might explain more about the importance of formation versus information and why they consider that what is offered in the traditional teacher training colleges is of a higher quality than the Hibernia College programme. One group that is missing from today's discussion is parents and perhaps representatives of that group might attend a later discussion on this matter.

Rule 156(3) of the Department's rules for national schools stipulates that students are not permitted to be employed as teachers in any national school, save with special sanction of the Minister, during the full course of their training. The CHOICE delegation has questioned whether this rule is being enforced for students of Hibernia College and the committee should ask the Department to clarify this point. Is the CHOICE delegation indicating that students of Hibernia College are actively breaching this rule or is it concerned that such breaches might take place? The question of why this rule exists in the first place is something that could also be discussed with the Department.

One must emphasise that what is at issue is graduate training. Mr. Travers stated that CHOICE's enrolment has been curtailed as a direct result of increased enrolment at Hibernia College. Does Mr. Travers have evidence to this effect? There does not seem to be a level playing field between what the traditional training colleges are providing and the programme offered by Hibernia College. I agree with Deputy Andrews that some serious allegations have been made about the way in which Hibernia College conducts its business. Bearing in mind the Chairman's exhortation to avoid making accusations against people who are not here to defend themselves, it would nevertheless be useful if Hibernia College could write to the committee, prior to its meeting with us, to answer some of the allegations that have been made today, including questions about assessors and allegations that the college has falsely claimed involvement with certain people and so on. Is it true that the college agreed to restrict intake to a particular level and has that level been entirely breached?

I am interested in what the INTO delegation has said regarding a potential excess in the supply of teachers in future and the attendant possibility of redundancies and a decrease in graduate applications to teacher training programmes. That is something of which we must be wary. I ask the Chairman to consider a request to the Department for the establishment of a forum on teacher supply as well as a review of Hibernia College.

The issue of the protection of standards has been raised, with the implication that e-learning would lower standards. However, the Hibernia College programme does not consist only of e-learning but incorporates a significant on-site training element also. The matter has also been raised of the failure of HETAC to include an international expert in e-learning on its assessment panel. This is an issue that the committee should raise with HETAC again following previous discussions on the same point.

It has been pointed out that the Higher Education Authority, HEA, issued a public statement which drew attention to the factually incorrect claims made by Hibernia College in its mission statement. Perhaps Mr. Travers could inform the committee of those claims as I am not familiar with them.

That no information has been given by Hibernia College regarding religious education, psychology of education and so on, as asserted at this meeting, is amazing. HETAC may have some response for the committee on this point. The lack of transparency in terms of HETAC is one of my main concerns and I support Deputy Andrews's suggestion that it be included under the provisions of the freedom of information legislation, which would require some legislative change.

The IFUT delegation spoke of an increased professionalisation of teaching and claimed that the Hibernia College programme recognises the old-style teacher training model which reflects the monitorial style of the 19th century. I am somewhat rusty on the history of education and would appreciate if the delegation could explain this point in more detail. The absence from the Hibernia College staff of course authors and lecturers was also raised. Perhaps the IFUT delegation might explain why the inclusion of such staff members is important as this strikes me as something new.

Deputy Enright

When the HETAC representative visited the committee, I asked about the procedure when a course is accredited and how soon it is reviewed once it is established. I was informed that the issuing of a certificate of course approval can apply for a single cohort or for five years. I assume therefore that because Hibernia College is now on its third intake, it must have a five-year approval. The minutes of the committee's meeting with the HETAC representative must be reviewed. He clearly said no expert in education on the panel approved it.

Chairman

Do members of the committee have further questions? I am trying to anticipate what we might do at the end of this meeting. Serious questions have been raised which have implications for students on these courses as well as the pupils they will subsequently teach. The committee might wish to indicate to Hibernia College that it should address these concerns soon, perhaps before 30 September. There are issues which must be raised with the Minister and HETAC. We will do so quickly and try to get answers.

I am mindful of my earlier warning. Based on the information presented, the committee must determine whether the issues surrounding the academic committee amount to sloppy procedure on the part of HETAC and the Department of Education and Science or whether there is an element of sharp practice. Was it regarded as a quick solution to the problem outlined by the INTO of 40,000 students being taught by untrained teachers? Was it viewed as a cheap option? There are a great many possibilities which might come into play. I have no doubt the committee would take a strong view if it was a case of sharp practice as suggested. Whatever the case, it warrants further examination.

All speakers raised the issue of the quality of teachers and of teaching in schools. Is it impossible to train teachers adequately using this method, even if 55% of students' training is on-site? That is the fundamental question. It has implications for students and for the pupils they will subsequently teach. There were questions whether students admitted to the course are suitable for the teaching profession. Are students recruited to the colleges on the basis of points alone or are they subject to a suitability test? Deputy Hoctor asked a related question.

Deputy Stanton

That is the approach taken with graduates.

Chairman

I am referring to the ordinary teacher training programme which requires a certain number of points.

Deputy Stanton

I wish to raise a matter with the INTO representatives. The executive stated that under no circumstances does it wish to see undergraduate teacher training carried out on-line. Teachers partake in work experience. Have teachers from Hibernia College interacted with teachers in schools or with INTO members? Will this happen and how does the INTO feel about the matter?

Chairman

That is a fair question. I am also interested in the area of research in education which was referred to but not examined in great depth. The committee may wish to consider the matter at a later date.

I realise Mr. Keogh has a pressing engagement and must leave. Does he wish to respond briefly to the questions raised?

Mr. Keogh

I must leave. I will be available on 30 September. Deputy Andrews raised the issue of private versus public. That is a huge debate. The argument is that market forces will work here, but market forces are not at play. A cap has been introduced on the intake to graduate diploma courses in the colleges of education. That is a manipulation of the market.

Regarding the issue of the stealth cut, if the numbers of students in a State-funded college are capped and in some instances halved, the State capitation payment is halved also. In my everyday work, I see that, as a result of the cap, the college has suffered, as has our ability to provide other projects. A Deputy asked why one of her constituents could not get into the college. It is harder for the constituent to get into the college now that the Minister has halved the intake. If he had left the intake as it was, that constituent might have been one of the 400 successful applicants out of a total of 900. However the cut halved her chances.

On the issue of the primary curriculum support programme, PCSP, this is a cost to the State. These people were seconded from teaching as inservice trainers working full-time in the Department of Education and Science. They are paid by the State and are at the service of the State. The assistant national co-ordinator of the PCSP wrote to all the new tutors as follows:

Hi Everyone. I am sending this to you for your attention. You may be interested in getting involved as a tutor with Hibernia College in a private capacity. Regards.

The e-mail attachment is from Hibernia College and is addressed to State employees. It reads as follows:

Dear Tutors. We are currently looking to recruit authors and tutors for our graduate diploma in primary education in the following methodology areas: History, Geography, Science, Music, Drama and Social Personal and Health Education.

There is a cost. I have asked the Secretary General of the Department, Mr. Dennehy, whether it is practice for entire units of the Civil Service to be recruited in this manner. Would the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform tolerate gardaí working as bouncers? Would the Minister for Finance tolerate the Revenue Commissioners moonlighting to give tax advice? Would planning departments allow planning officers to act in a private capacity? I have asked Mr. Dennehy whether this amounts to departmental sponsorship of a private company. How do the nocturnal events of staff affect the productivity of the PCSP units? If their superiors consider them under-employed, which is obvious from the e-mail, why are they not better used in the service of the State? These are simple questions that must be addressed.

On the issue of 55% versus 45%, we are relying on Hibernia College statistics. Representatives of the college are not here because they have chosen not to be here. Their absence was referred to as cheeky, but it is more than that. They have decided not to come here, so we cannot answer that question. We have no way of verifying these figures. It is not about the medium, it is about the quality of the information and the teaching being communicated. If poor teachers train other teachers, it does not matter if they do so by magic, on-line or face to face. The net result is the same. The bar must be raised.

Everybody commented on the calibre of the teaching profession in Ireland. Most students on our undergraduate courses got over 500 points in their leaving certificate. How many of us got 500 points? Why do people with such high points want to be teachers? If we are attracting students of that calibre, why dumb down? Why should the bar be lowered by such action? That is happening. If the Department kills the goose that lays the golden egg, it will be too bad. The national interest will suffer as a result. It is short-sighted. Consider pilot projects in the UK and the morale of the teaching profession there. People with 500 points are not going into teaching. That is why Tony Blair is placing such emphasis on education. They are trying to attract such people. We in Ireland have those people. Why damage an asset like the teaching profession in such a way?

These are some of the issues and we would be glad to come back before the committee on the 30 September.

Chairman

We will return to CHOICE. It is a long time since its presentation.

Mr. Travers

People all over the world complain about a shortage of teachers. Ireland is unusual in that we have a shortage of teachers but not a shortage of people who want to get into teaching. There are five people for every available place. There is no difficulty attracting people. The issue is which people in what circumstance. This raises the issue of access. One of the criticisms of third level education, and rightly so, is that it has failed in the area of opening up access. Teacher education and teaching is an area for which no one need apologise. Traditionally, people of all classes, from every parish throughout Ireland became primary teachers. The access issue was confined to particular pockets of disadvantage and deprivation in towns and cities. We have done quite well in regard to access. The issue does not relate to access, it relates to standards.

I referred to the OECD, on which the Government relies for advice in regard to policy in the area of education. It has reviewed the practice of e-learning. It favours, by and large, the use of e-learning but there is a distinction between initial teacher education, that is, when one is initially training teachers, and when teachers are in school and want to be up-skilled or maintain the relevance of what they do. We see a huge role for continuing professional development for teachers. However, we have more serious concerns about initial teacher education. The OECD said that the major problem relates to standards and the only way to guarantee standards is to have a traditional provider who is a watchdog for quality in the system. What did we do? We franchised a private company that had never taught five minutes of a teacher education course.

An e-mail was referred to regarding the recruitment of people to write a course. The first cohort on the Hibernia course are now 12 months into the course. They have not yet graduated so we do not know what the quality will be. There are still aspects of the course for which people are being sought to write the programme that has been accredited. This is breath-taking. It is very difficult to understand, coming from a background of people who have been involved in accreditation.

In regard to the confusion surrounding the PCSP, members may have got a sense from Mr. Keogh's response that the Department of Education and Science has no formal involvement. However, this does not preclude it from an out-of-hours involvement. The point we were making is that the Hibernia accreditation document specifically ascribes a key role to the PCSP. Those who accredited the course said it was crucial to the delivery of it. We currently have two cohorts of Hibernia students and another being recruited, therefore, there will be three courses on stream before graduates qualify. It will be five, six or ten years before we can judge the quality. In the meantime, every child who has been in the class of one of these teachers will be exposed, therefore, the programme should have been tested.

I have no doubt very talented people are taking the Hibernia course. It has provided a route into teaching for many fine people who want to teach and who have been in schools. When Hibernia sought accreditation, it focused on people already in schools but, when it advertised the course, it did not confine it to this group. Anyone could apply regardless of whether they ever set foot in a school. While the accreditation document focused on one aspect, something else happened in practice. While the accreditation document said one thing in regard to intake, something else happened. This justifies the use of the term "misleading".

On the Scottish example, it is a specific project for the Highlands and the islands. Because there is a difficulty providing teachers for the Highlands and the islands in Scotland, it was decided to undertake a pilot course, with a limited and specified intake, and monitor it as it proceeded. I understand the Open University had an on-line course which ran into difficulties. This is an evolving area and there are no international precedents which will help us.

Ms Caoimhe Martin

I will deal with some of Deputy Hoctor's questions. She referred to screening for the BEd. and post-graduate degree. The interview system still exists for the post-graduate course but not for the BEd. course. This is an outcome from the complex situation of the CAO. Whatever course is involved, there should be very specific pre-entry screening in terms of suitability. What is in place, and contributes to the quality in the colleges we represent, is that once students arrive they are in very close contact with small group teaching skills, tutors, teaching practice supervisors and a variety of other teaching and learning situations in-house before moving into school. Early on, if there are concerns about a student's suitability, and there is about a very small minority, they are followed up, the student is supported and counselled and moved into a school situation. When I say "early on" I mean within the first year of the BEd. course and within the first six months or so for the post-graduate course. Early indications of possible future suitability give rise to support initially, and in some cases the students are counselled out of teaching. I cannot speak for Hibernia but I would like to know how it handles this situation. I have confidence this aspect is handled well in the colleges I represent.

The second question referred to the difficulty in gaining places. Long may it continue because it adds to the value and quality of teachers. It is an indication of the value attached to teacher education. Having said that, it is very painful for those who are disappointed with regard to entry. Sometimes it is a one in five chance and sometimes it has been as high as a one in none or one in ten chance. I cannot recall when any of the colleges of education refused to increase or meet what was requested of them by the Department of Education and Science in terms of teacher numbers. If there is a difficulty it relates to the capping we experience and Hibernia has not experienced. It is not a difficulty of our making, it is a difficulty of the Department's making.

To flip it the other way, it is extraordinary that in June 2003, our college recruited five staff. It is funded on a capitation system, therefore, we recruited the staff on the basis of the students we would have for the year. Within six weeks of the five people moving out of their other position, we discovered that Hibernia had arrived. I am not criticising Hibernia, but I suspected this would have an impact. I was not confident that the Department would not reduce our numbers, which it did. By the following February, we had lost half our graduate intake. We were not even afforded the courtesy of pre-planning, despite the fact that for the past ten to 12 years we had bounced around to accommodate the needs of the Department in regard to teacher supply. We responded to anything that was requested from the colleges — I cannot recall a refusal.

What added value has Hibernia brought to the situation, because it certainly has not brought added numbers? The reduction in numbers for our colleges is the same as, and possibly more than, depending on what might happen in the next couple of months, the intake to Hibernia. Knowing there are no additional teachers coming into the system, and knowing what we do not know in regard to Hibernia, what assurances have we in regard to design, quality, delivery, breadth, balance and relevance? If we do not have that assurance why has it moved ahead with such confidence and speed?

With regard to the question as to whether there is a review on completion, it is a bit too early for Hibernia because the course is not finished yet. In terms of the question as to whether generally there is a review, I can only speak for the colleges we represent and say that reviews take place during and at the end of courses. In at least two of the colleges there is a survey one year after exit and after a 5 year period to ask the emerging teachers or the now experienced teachers about their experience and how it reflects on the training they have had.

In 1999 the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, commissioned the Kellaghan report and it was launched in 2002 by his successor, Deputy Woods. At that stage an extensive review was conducted of students still in training and those who had graduated within the previous five years. About 30 specific areas were trawled. The one thing that stands out in my mind was their concern as they reflected on the overload in the system. They felt they had received a good quality of training but that the courses needed to be extended. This fact was well documented in the 61 recommendations in the Kellaghan report. It leaves me with a great confusion in terms of the three Ministers involved, that between 1999 and 2003, one Minister commissioned the report, another launched it with 61 recommendations and within 12 months the third Minister appeared to allow the arrival of a new venture that bore no relevance to the recommendations of the Kellaghan report and in fact was in conflict with an expert group that spent expert time and a huge amount of student review in presenting concerns about how to improve quality and part of that improvement was extending the courses.

In reply to Deputy Andrews in terms of the cheap versus the old, it is not an offer of the cheap versus the old. In recent years, the colleges, specifically three of them completely reviewed and rewrote their programmes. Its not just a matter of the cheap versus the old but whether the State is willing to pay anything for teacher education. It comes cheap and cheerful on Hibernia. It is not that costly to provide quality of assurance along with the other colleges. Why have we allowed this to happen when we were not assured of added value?

Dr. Peadar Cremin

I express my appreciation to the committee for inviting us here and for facilitating an extensive discussion on this. I thank members for sharing their concerns that overlap with ours.

I searched the web to find out what courses were available through e-learning. In America only two states Idaho and Pennsylvania have toyed with the idea. There were eight candidates for the programme in Idaho but so far no candidate in Idaho or Pennsylvania has been certified.

We are experimenting in Irish education. The scale of the experiment compared to the scale of entrants to the teaching profession at primary level is quite extraordinary. According to the initial documentation sent to HETAC, there were to be 100 entrants. There is an enormous information deficit, and we have a problem dealing with this deficit just as the committee appears to have difficulty. There is a deficit with regard to how many came in last September and how many came in February and we know nothing about how many were signed on and paid their cheques by last week. A huge number of cheques flowed in over one 12 month period where the initial flag indicated there were to be 100. Members will appreciate that the scale of this is out of all proportion to anything that is happening elsewhere and is very worrying. The reason it is being tolerated worries me enormously.

It would not be reasonable to suggest that the preparation of any of the caring professions, particularly doctors and the like, should be handed over to a private group about whom there was a similar information deficit. When I searched Hibernia website on 1 August 2003, within five minutes of its course being launched at night, I could not find a detailed syllabus, programme, curriculum or staff list. Many of the people that were named on the website spent the following weeks issuing statements that they were not involved. Members will have seen their statements in the press. There is an enormous information void. It is difficult for us to discuss the Hibernia programme like other academic programmes because we do not have access to information. Nobody in the room has access to the materials.

It seems to me that there are key gatekeepers in our system. Every industrialist that has entered this country in the past ten years has said that one of Ireland's biggest attractions was the strength of the Irish education system and what it produced. Recently the American Teaching Commission issued a report the key sentence of which was: "Nothing is more vital to our future than ensuring that we attract and retain the best teachers in our public schools." The same applies to us. In a knowledge economy we are competing with them. In an knowledge economy, as recommended by the Kellaghan report, we need to improve the quality of teacher education not dumb it down. We cannot afford to put at risk the high standards being achieved by systems where people are brought together — recently we were informed it is 55%, although I did not see that figure in any of the early press releases — in a part-time programme. We are told that the programme is of the same standard in the press releases, but how can 55% of a part-time programme be the same as 100% of a full-time programme, particularly where the former is spread over 18 months? If members read the literature carefully they will see that the goalposts have been moved a number of times.

I am concerned about the people who act on behalf of the Irish taxpayer as gatekeepers of ethics and standards, particularly academic standards. We wrote last October to HETAC and we got an unsatisfactory response and had to write again. We repeated our request for detailed information on how it applied the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999. Unfortunately, we were not given the courtesy of a detailed response. We raised the same issues with the Department of Education and Science. We have sent regular reminders but still we have not received detailed responses. The Department informed us that a response is on the way. I would be happy to share with the committee, the list of issues we have raised with HETAC and with the Department. Since we have failed to get specific replies I would be interested to know if members can have our questions answered. Both of the bodies are the gatekeepers of the public's interests.

At the end of the day we are not concerned about the interests of particular colleges, we are concerned about the individuals who handed over their cheques for this. Are they getting the quality they deserve? Will Irish parents and the children of the future get the quality that they should get? How can a private provider with no track record provide a satisfactory service given the information deficit with regard to programme staffing, research and no control over their numbers, taking in as many as they like and depressing our numbers as a consequence? As some members mentioned it is a monopoly with many questions outstanding about tendering. There was no prior discussion and no public advertisement of tender.

We expect members and the other gatekeepers to act on our behalf and in the taxpayers' best interests. In this instance I cannot find evidence of that. I suggest there is a drift to put this off until September despite enormous numbers going through, and enormous sums of money involved in terms of the costs to the individual students, with one cohort going in after another and now a third which I did not understand from the materials submitted to HETAC. I wonder if HETAC knew what it had not signed up to, rather than had signed up to? I have very grave concerns about that and I hope the committee will take up those issues. Perhaps as Dr. Cremin does not have the information on the differences he is unable to answer the question.

Dr. Cremin

I have nailed one of the big differences — the course is a part-time one. Fifty-five per cent of part-time is not the same. Second, where is it being delivered and by whom? What is its status and standing? I think of the grilling through which we put our new staff. Our recruitment processes are very demanding. Only the very best of the teaching fraternity in the educational community will find themselves teaching young students in our facilities. We do not recruit by e-mail asking who is prepared to do it, an issue mentioned earlier today.

Where are the courses delivered? We were told they would be delivered in teacher centres throughout the country. However, they are being delivered in only four teaching centres almost all of which are close to Dublin. Teacher centres were not designed for teacher education. They have no science or PE laboratories or any of the facilities required for training. In the original press release Hibernia College's flash point was that it was a virtual school-room. I prefer real teaching situations.

Ms Philomena Donnelly

The problem which arises in terms of answering Deputy Enright's question is that there is much vagueness about Hibernia College and in that regard we are comparing something which is difficult to pin down. However, many Deputies have pointed to the key aspect in this regard — the quality issue. I will point out what that means for people teaching in the colleges.

While some of the differences are general, some are more particular. This issue relates to the future of our children. Children born today will be taught by those now training in the colleges. One of the key indicators of quality — this is based on international research — of teaching at any level be it pre-school, primary, second or third level is the qualifications of those delivering the courses. As a former member of the INTO I fought hard in the 1970s to have teacher education upgraded to a degree course. I was successful in that regard not only from a union perspective but from a professional perspective. People can speak of the high quality of education because of our efforts to ensure standards remain high.

I work in St. Patrick's College but the following point may relate to all colleges or universities. A particular college is not identified by a particular course or a certain number of skills, all of which are important in terms of communication and managing young children with difficulties and of managing a child with special needs in a class with 30 other children. Such matters are dealt with in detail with the students. What is significant is that those delivering the training have active research and publications portfolios. It is expected of me and my colleagues when preparing an annual report that we comment on our current research, what has been published and on what conferences we have attended to discuss issues with our international colleagues.

I will give a brief example from my perspective which could apply across the board. I have been involved in an EU reconciliation funded research project on diversity in early years. Early years are quite significant in that they are often the first point of contact for child and parent. Such matters are important when preparing students to teach at any level within the primary school. The project in which I am involved is a joint project with Stranmillis and deals with diversity in all its aspects on the island including children from the Traveller community, children with special needs, children from the immigrant community and sectarianism, particularly in the North. That research is to be published in September. When taking a module on early years, those teaching in Stranmillis and St. Patrick's College will use that up to date knowledge. That is what quality is about though that is an isolated area. There is also research in the areas of psychology, science, history, philosophy and IT. The teaching of IT is the portfolio of all those teaching with me in the education department in St. Patrick's College. That is the type of information available in terms of providing quality teaching. A cumulation of research and experience makes up that quality.

One must ask what quality is provided to the 55% taking Hibernia College courses. Another issue down through the years has been the isolation of teachers in individual classrooms or schools. The advantage of having a university based teacher education programme, particularly initial teacher education be it BEd. or the postgraduate course, is that people mix and learn with others. They receive assistance not only from us as tutors but from the other students. When do people undertaking on-line courses come together? When does the unit become complete? I do not believe it ever does.

Deputy O'Sullivan raised the issue of e-mails. The e-mail read out by Daire Keogh and referred to by Dr. Travers was sent by the Director of Author and Tutors for Hibernia College on 23 June 2004 to recruit people in the areas of history, geography, science, music and drama and social and personal education. These modules will commence in November 2004. The e-mail was issued in June 2004. I presume the respondents will be interviewed around now or some time in August. Those employed will then have to write up courses to be delivered in November 2004. The e-mail also states: "If you happen to know anyone who is experienced in any of these above areas and will be interested in authorising or tutoring with Hibernia College, please ask them to forward their CV." That is where the difference lies and is what quality is about.

Chairman

We will now hear from a representative of the remaining three groups.

Mr. Carr

I have no problem in holding my leadership up to scrutiny in any forum but I appreciate and acknowledge this is not that forum. However, what I will not accept is my organisation being used as a scapegoat on this issue. The responsibility for recognising teachers and issuing licence to teachers rests with the Department of Education and Science not the INTO. The INTO does not have any involvement with the colleges of education or with Hibernia College in relation to any of their courses. We have never been invited to become involved in putting together courses. The INTO is not responsible for the recognition of teachers, rather that is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science.

The Department of Education and Science, as the competent authority has the responsibility to protect the quality of teacher education. It is hoped that responsibility will transfer under the Teaching Council Act to the council in the not too distant future. As things stands, the competent authority with responsibility is the Department of Education and Science. That Department should be called to explain why this course is up and running. Many speakers today challenged the statutory body but I do not. The State has established to body to regulate qualifications and courses. It is not therefore my duty to challenge a State authority in that respect and I will not do so. However, I challenge the Department of Education and Science and that is why we called in our submission for the Department to conduct a review or evaluation in this area. If this came before the secondary teacher registration council, it would appoint an expert committee to visit the college, discuss its programme and satisfy itself that the course was of such a quality as to enable teachers teach in schools. If the Department had done that or is prepared to do so now, many of our concerns could be answered by that expert committee.

I have dedicated my life to teacher professionalism and have written five books on the subject: Professionalism in the 1990s; Teaching as a Career; Professional Development of Teaching; Educated Teachers; and Teaching Council. Therefore, I reject any criticism that I am not committed to teacher professionalism. It is because of my commitment to teacher professionalism that I came to the view ten years ago that this State is not capable of upholding the professionalism of teachers today. Incidentally, this is not the first course the State has recognised in the past four or five years about which we are concerned. It did the same with regard to other courses also without any consultation etc. As I said, I reject any criticism of me or my organisation because we got full endorsement at our congress on the matter.

With regard to the current cohort of student teachers on the course, they are fabulous people, young and not so young. They are teaching in our schools and are fellow members of our profession who wish to transfer from post-primary to primary level teaching. All of the students currently on the course have a HDip in Education. I do not know if the same is true for the new group coming in and this is the reason we are calling for an expert working group. We are led to believe they all have a HDip in Education and they are therefore teachers. For anybody to call them "yellow packs" is insulting to us and the teachers concerned. I repudiate and reject any attempt to classify them as "yellow packs". For them to be classed as such does no good for our profession. Let us evaluate the course and then decide whether its graduates are as good as those coming from any other college. I also reject the inference that poor teachers transfer to this course. Some of the people on this course are members of my organisation. I reject the criticism and find it unacceptable that these people are so classified without being here today to defend themselves.

The issue that caused this problem is the teacher shortage. The profession had a shortage of 1,600 teachers which meant 40,000 children were being taught by unqualified teachers. We were screaming for help at the time and calling on the colleges of education to establish and provide modular courses in the evenings, at weekends and on-line, if necessary. Two or three years ago we provided 500 names of dedicated post-primary qualified teachers who wished to transfer to primary teaching but who could not afford to do so because they did not have the money to take a year and a half off to do the course in St. Patrick's training college.

We did not ask at the time for the course to be a one-year course rather than three or four years or whatever. We only asked for those people to be provided with an opportunity and we would try to keep them in the system while they were in the colleges. I understand from what I have heard today that the Department did not run with that although we pleaded with it. The reason Hibernia College came into the system was because of the gap in the market. We could not train enough teachers, or so it seemed. Hibernia moved into a niche and established the courses to provide, as it said, a public service by ensuring that we would have trained rather than untrained personnel in our classrooms.

When I first met Hibernia, I told it we would support the colleges of education and would work actively against Hibernia to ensure the success of the colleges' of education modular courses. However, those courses never materialised for various reasons although Froebel sent a proposal to the Department of Education and Science without response. Questions remain to be answered on that and I will return to the issue.

Whether teachers come from England, other countries or are trained in other institutions, all we ask is that we have a mechanism to ensure they can be recognised. The teaching council will be that mechanism and will provide that protection. However, we are under pressure because of the European directive on the mobility of teachers which means we must accept teachers from European countries, including the extended European countries with their wide variety of teacher training avenues. In that context, it is more imperative than ever to have a teaching council. In the end, the issue comes down to quality and teacher supply and demand. Hopefully as a result of the establishment of the teaching council, this will not be an issue again.

Currently, there are 947 equivalent teacher hours in primary teaching being delivered on a part-time basis to children with special needs. Many of the people delivering the service to those vulnerable children are untrained. We must ensure we can cover those 947 hours. The Minister has sanctioned another 350 teachers for the system in September.

Taking on board the views of Deputies, unless we get supply and demand right and plan ahead rather than make political or expedient announcements, particularly in the area of special needs, we will never resolve the quandary in terms of the quality of our teaching profession. If we all sit down together and get an evaluation of this course, which it is imperative to do immediately, we can decide on its merits with the help of the expert report. I am confident that the first two cohorts on the course are top-class people. However this confidence does not take account of the mode of delivery.

If we get the issues of supply and demand right, we can resolve the dilemma once and for all. I appeal to this committee to call on the Minister to establish an expert working group to examine the situation. We will co-operate fully with that working group so that, once and for all, we can ensure we have a quality system. I worry when I hear people talk about "yellow packs" because that means our profession and the upholding of high standards will suffer down the line. It is expedient therefore for an expert group to examine the two issues.

Mr. Hearne

I will respond to a couple of the points. The fundamental point for the USI is that the State is abdicating its responsibility to provide teachers. The situation has arisen, as the teacher training colleges have said, because of the underfunding and lack of resources given to them for the provision of the courses. Therefore, we have, effectively, the contracting or franchising out to a private company of something which should be done by the State and which is its responsibility.

The problem comes back to the cutbacks this Government is putting in place across the education sector. The question was put as to what the difference is between Hibernia, an on-line private course, and the courses being run by the existing colleges. For us, this involves a number of issues because we have been mandated to campaign actively against the privatisation of education.

One cannot sustainably rely on private companies to provide an education service. We have all seen what happens with private companies. Some of them go bankrupt, they fail, etc.

I was a teacher of English in Spain. The entire system of private teaching colleges collapsed because profits fell. There was no one left to teach English to the children. There have been difficulties with Jarvis which built five schools in a public private partnership. Can one rely on a private company to deliver in the long term something as fundamental as teachers?

The other difference is the conditions for students on these courses. The USI has fought for, defended and will continue to defend the quality of conditions for students. For example, we lobby for the availability of health care, counselling and financial support for students in colleges. In our view, none of this exists in nor can it be provided by an on-line private college. It will not have the resources and will not invest in these resources which are fundamental for the well-being of students.

The issue of access is a fundamental one. Deputy Crowe referred to the attitude of pulling up the ladder and defending the ivory tower. The USI is completely opposed to this attitude. We want everybody who wishes to pursue a course in education to be able to do so, but the reality is they cannot. They are hampered by lack of grants, lack of financial support and the costs. How will Hibernia, a private company, deal with these issues? In colleges of education a certain percentage of places are put aside for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Will Hibernia do the same? Will places be put aside for such students? Hibernia charges €5,500 in fees. How can this be accessible for students from a working class background?

The issue of a review of the accreditation of the course is taking too long. Discussions took place last October. The fact that Hibernia is not present today is an absolute disgrace. It shows the contempt in which it holds public representatives and democracy. The USI believes that 30 September is too late for a review of such a fundamental issue. We have been mandated to campaign and oppose in this matter and we will do so. It is the duty of Government to initiate a review of Hibernia College, but those issues under discussion today must also be addressed. Access by those from disadvantaged backgrounds, financial support for students, and the level of support for students in terms of welfare, health, counselling and the long-term sustainability of the course should be examined. Rather than looking to private companies to fill the gaps, the Government should reverse the cuts in funding for teacher training colleges and increase the funding instead to allow more students to attend the colleges.

Chairman

Does the Alliance wish to comment on any of the issues raised?

Mr. O’Meara

I wish to comment. As an associate member of the INTO, which I believe I am, I feel entitled to comment on how the INTO has dealt with this issue. I never stated that the union has responsibility for recognition of courses. I believe that the motion passed at congress which I read into the record provides a roadmap for the INTO on this issue. The motion demands that no further on-line courses take place or receive recognition until this review has been completed. The Department of Education and Science has not completed the review. I have no reason to believe it is going to move on that. Hibernia College has not listened to the message of congress. As an associate member of the INTO, I am merely outlining the alternatives or options which I believe are available to the INTO.

Ms Passmore

As Mr. Carr stated, our argument is not with the candidates or individuals taking the Hibernia College course at present. It is with the issue of the quality of the course where our concerns lie. We do not have a personal vendetta against the individuals. We are calling for a review of the Hibernia course on the grounds of quality.

With reference to the question of whether we have spoken to students on the course, I was approached by a student last week who is currently applying for courses in education. This girl has extensive experience in the field of education over the past six or seven years. She is Montessori-trained and has worked as a substitute teacher. She expressed a preference for applying to the long-established colleges of education, such as St. Patrick's, Mary Immaculate College, Marino and Froebel. I asked her why they were her first preference colleges. She replied that they have a standing record. I then asked if she would apply for the Hibernia course. She replied that it would not be her first preference because there was no review and there is very scant information available about the course. She only knew that it was a postgraduate course in education. She expressed concerns about the future and whether this course would be held in the same esteem as the present existing courses in postgraduate education.

These issues should have been resolved for the sake of students applying to such courses. It is very late in the day now. The college is now taking in its third intake of students. This student regarded this college as a last resort. As Dr. Travers and other speakers have stated, we must examine ways of making education more accessible to candidate students.

Hibernia College must be examined and, so far, it is untested. There should be a review procedure of quality issues carried out. It should have been considered many months ago. A pilot scheme should have been put in place. In an area as important as education, it is difficult to believe this has not been considered and a full licence has been granted to an organisation and private company with no track record in this area. These issues should have been debated a year ago and a public discussion forum should have been provided, but this all took place after accreditation rather than prior to it.

Mr. Carr

Deputy Enright asked a question. To clarify, the INTO did not nominate a member to the accreditation body of HETAC. I understand that a former principal primary teacher was a member of that body.

Deputy Enright

My question was as a result of the letter received by the committee from Hibernia and that was what it claimed.

Chairman

I thank everyone for their submissions and for their answers to the members' questions. I also thank the members.

The joint committee went into private session at 2.19 p.m. and adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. Thursday, 22 July 2004.