Senator Augustine Martin has given notice that he wishes to raise the question of the recent reduction of financial aid to in-service training for second-level teachers.
Adjournment Debate. Teachers In-Service Training.
The few points I want to make on this matter are points which I regard as of the utmost gravity and urgency. At the same time I want to present them in a spirit of calm, reason and courtesy. As the Minister has been so kind as to be in attendance for this motion on the adjournment, I would hope that he would be able to give some reassuring answers on the issues I want to raise.
The issues are concerned with priorities in education. It seems to me, when one applies oneself to the question of priorities in education one must look at the whole field of education and ask where are we going, what are we trying to achieve and how to we define educational advance. There are all kinds of ways of defining educational advance. Indeed, it has been defined in the media right, left and centre from all kinds of different viewpoints.
Do you define educational advance by pointing to the number of buildings that go up, whether they are temporary buildings, whether they are terrapin buildings, whether they are permanent buildings, or whether you associate that kind of advance with increasing the number of teachers being employed every year? Or do you define it in terms of the new theories of education and philosophies of education being developed?
I should like to intervene to indicate that the Senator is filling in his background by means of very broad strokes. I hope he appreciates that, on the adjournment, it is appropriate to raise only a particular matter and the discussion must be confined to that particular matter.
Hear, hear.
I am grateful to Senator Robinson for her support of the Chair in this matter but——
Her forgiveness of the Chair.
Quite, but the general cut-back in moneys towards in-service teachers is something that surely cannot be viewed unless it is viewed against the general structure of education and philosophy. I am sorry if I have offended the Chair in trying to gesture towards a philosophy of education in the practice of education. It is clear to anyone who is involved in education at this moment that there has been a cut-back in every possible area of education and there has been a cut-back in particular in the area of in-service training for teachers. This is the only reason why I want to raise the matter on the adjournment. The cut-back from £90,000 to £10,000 towards in-service training for teachers, within the very broad dimension of Irish education which involves enormous, indeed, astronomical, sums of money seems to me extremely harsh. This is, perhaps, the most vital of all areas of education because it involves the teacher himself. My preamble, which may have seemed too circumlocutory, was merely pointing to the fact that this sum of £90,000 which has been cut to £10,000 involves the area that is always the most central, the most ongoing, the most vital and ultimately the most fruitful in the whole area of education.
In order to focus on that particular issue, I should like to point out that the most salutory thing that has happened in second-level education in Ireland over the past ten years, or so, has been the growth of subject teaching associations—that is, teachers of English, history and geography, teachers in about seven or eight important areas of second-level education have gathered together and founded associations. These associations have been concerned with nothing except the improvement of quality in the teaching of their subjects. By and large, they have worked from their own resources, from the contributions made by their own members; they have organised weekend seminars, lectures, summer schools. They have battled on with only one thing central to their concern—the improvement of the teaching within their own disciplines.
The Department of Education—and this has been a salutory thing too over the past ten years—have offered financial support to them, not great financial support by any manner or means, but some financial support. In fact, these teachers could look forward to certain subventions from the Department of Education in order to make their voluntary efforts and their own voluntarily given time more and more fruitful. Particularising to a degree that may positively please the Chair, I might point out that over the past two or three years I have attended such seminars in Athlone, Sligo, Ballina, Thurles, Cork, Limerick, Carrick-on-Shannon, Monaghan, Clonmel, and a number of other provincial centres where teachers of English have come together to share their views, air their problems, listen to lectures and try to increase their expertise in the job that they are doing.
The Department of Education have offered them a certain amount of help —not an enormous amount—towards subsistence. For instance, any teacher who came to such a seminar was offered £2 a day for subsistence. If he travelled by car, he was offered either third class public transport or 3p per mile. No longer can any teacher who attends such a seminar hope for the £2 or the 3p. It has been withdrawn. That withdrawal is involved in the cutback from £90,000 to £10,000. Consequently, at this moment these voluntary organisations which have banded together for the improvement of teaching are now facing a situation in which such seminars and such summer schools are on the very brink of disintegration, particularly with the rising cost of transport but mainly because this subsistence, small and all as it is, has been withdrawn.
The argument that I want to make, and that argument certainly has to do with my preamble, is that even if we cannot build more centres, even if we cannot provide more equipment for schools, what is involved is a more drop in the bucket in relation to the £90,000. The withdrawal at this moment is a death blow to the enthusiasm of teachers who are trying off their own bat and for the very, very best of reasons to improve their ministry and their service to the community. It seems impossible to deal with this in vacuo. For instance, a great deal of the rhetoric employed at this very moment in regard to education seems to indicate that sometime in the future, perhaps, 20 years from now, we will have the perfect Irish educational system at secondary level—a kind of Utopia involving a totally comprehensive school system. It would involve, according to some of its proponents, an educational system in which there would be no clerics, male or female. It would be a Utopia in which no student would ever have to pay a fee—a Utopia in which all kinds of equipment would be available as needs be. When this Utopia is established Ireland's educational problems will be solved.
In the meantime, there are people involved in education who are passionately devoted to it, devoted to their own subjects. In other words, there are troops on the ground who need encouragement and help and who need to be reassured that what they are doing is good, and what they are doing is good. This is central to what I am saying this evening with regard to this cut-back. The secondary teachers of Ireland, lay or clerical, Protestant, Catholic or otherwise, work very hard and do an extremely good job. In fact, they have established academic standards as high as will be found in any country in Europe. They are being undermined by this rhetoric, by this promise of a Utopia. Perhaps that Utopia will eventually come about but in the meantime what those teachers need most of all is encouragement from the Government that what they are doing is good and there is no better proof of that fact than the manifestation I am talking about. The teachers of geography, English and history have come together. Every year they try to give lectures and hold seminars in the city and country. They try to share their difficulties, their complexities and tackle all the problems that are attendant on their own professional problems. This is happening and it has been burgeoning. In fact, it has been taking off. Many of these associations produce journals. The association that I have been particularly connected with, the Association of Teachers of English, have produced a journal called "ATE" during the past seven years. That journal has been of enormous help. It has been produced in the most competent way. It has got a subvention from the Department of Education. That has made it possible for it to survive but it cannot survive anymore. It has gone to the wall because of a small subvention by the Department of Education. At first it was £100. That was increased to £200 and then £300. But because of the rising cost in paper and printing suddenly it has been chopped too.
I am talking about something small but it is vitally important. I am not talking about the building of enormous schools or the buying of equipment. I am talking about the fact that £90,000 which was available last year is now reduced to £10,000. The Minister was a distinguished English and French teacher in his time and, indeed, a member of the Association of Teachers of English. I simply do not believe that he does not mourn the cut-back, which would involve, as far as the Association of Teachers of English are concerned, hardly more than £1,000.
That, in fact, has put that association and its future at risk. It has put the summer school at risk and has made their journal almost impossible to produce in the future. Perhaps that is but an interim situation. Perhaps next year or the year after the money will be available again. I am talking about the kind of continuity involved. The people who dedicate their spare time as teachers to the running of summer schools or week-end seminars, travelling all over the country giving lectures, involving themselves in debates and in dialogue, are the kind of teachers who really are the salt of the earth. If their enthusiasm is dampened at this time it could take the kind of effort they have mounted a decade to get back on the road again. That is why I feel that this is a matter of extraordinary importance.
I do not intend to labour the matter but it seems to me that what we have to think about in terms of education is ultimately a question of quality not quantity. We may have the biggest schools and the best equipment—we will not have them for a long time that is for sure—but one thing that is probably the cheapest to buy at the moment is the quality of the teacher. A good teacher even in the most desolate room can carry out the ministry of teaching extremely well. Our ancestors did this in the hedge schools.
I am not blaming the Minister because he is one person who has never downgraded the importance of the teacher's ministry but by and large in the media the kind of view has been put forward that unless in the future we can arrive at the perfect method, the perfect school, have the perfect equipment, there is very little that can be done. In the meantime there is one extremely important thing that can be done and that is to keep the enthusiasm of the teachers going. The cut-back is a tiny thing. I would like the Seanad to apply its attention for one moment to the fact that last year there was £90,000 available for in-service teacher training, that this year it is £10,000 or if I could localise it even further, my own association, the Association of Teachers of English—I am not pleading specially for them at all—last year they were assured of something like £500 subvention to stay alive and this year they are getting nothing. The summer school will be run this year but the teachers coming to it can no longer apply for £2 a day sustenance or 3p per mile to travel. A lot of teachers who wanted to come and to keep their enthusiasm going are now dejected and downcast because of this incredibly small cut-back. While we wait for Utopia I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that that small area involving teachers who want to make themselves better teachers is undermined by current Government policy.
Senators are aware that on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week there was a debate in the Dáil on a motion concerning grants payable to secondary schools. During the course of my intervention in that debate I referred to certain aspects of the problem of financial provision for the education services which would have equal relevance for my observations in connection with the present discussion. I do not consider that the fact that I have already adverted to these matters in the earlier debate should preclude me from drawing attention to them again tonight.
The problems at present in relation to the financing of the educational services are not capable of being solved overnight, and in the allocation of financial resources to meet the various demands for the different sectors of the educational system, priorities have to be established in relation to expenditure within the overall allocation of funds available. In this respect expenditure includes expenses of all kinds, whether on teachers' salaries, equipment, grants and scholarships to students as well as grants to schools, both current and capital.
In our circumstances in Ireland we continue to have an annual increase in the number of pupils in our schools and colleges at all levels, unlike the situation in many other countries. The provision in the Estimates for 1975 for the educational services represented an increase of £41 million but the demands arising in respect of various services to which priority had to be accorded exceeded that amount. I have not heard anyone advocate that we should not pay teachers the increases in salaries awarded to other comparable sectors of the community, and the general demand is for an increase in grants and other forms of assistance to meet the expense of schools, colleges and universities. There was a considerable increase in the estimated cost in 1975 of operating the free school transport service for primary and secondary schools and my proposals for the introduction of a special capitation grant per pupil in primary schools further added to the financial demands. I felt, however, that this scheme would serve to put these schools on a more reasonable financial basis and thus enable them to meet their commitments to all children, including those who might not have the opportunity of a full secondary, not to speak of third-level, education. There is inevitably a limit to the allocation of financial resources which a Minister for Finance—however willing—and a Government—however willing—may allocate for certain needs at any particular time and within that allocation the Minister concerned has to establish his priorities.
I should not, however, wish that my statement in connection with this debate should take the form of a lecture on economics. The courses under discussion include a series which have gone on for some years. In the case of the courses for the secondary teachers they had their origin in the fundamental changes introduced in the curricula and syllabuses as well as new methods of presentation and teaching of the different subjects of the curriculum. Many of the summer courses for teachers in the primary schools were related to the introduction of the new curriculum.
It may not be inappropriate to review the situation in relation to many of these courses at the present time. In so far as concerns the primary school teachers, principal teachers of all sizes of schools have been afforded an opportunity of attending courses specially devised to give them an insight and understanding of the aims, purpose and methods of introduction of the new curriculum. Courses have also been provided for many of the serving assistant teachers and the younger teachers have had their opportunity of acquiring a full understanding of the underlying principles and teaching methods during their college of education course. Similarly, in the case of the secondary school teachers the same sense of urgency and need for continuing to hold all the courses which have been conducted in recent years does not apply at present as heretofore.
It may also be remarked that there may be a tendency to continue to apply the same conditions as regards the financing and organisation of such courses as were considered necessary in the circumstances applicable at the date of their introduction, when in fact the same set of circumstances may be no longer applicable. It could be that, in the context of the necessity for revised priorities in relation to expenditure, the basis of the financial support for individual courses might appropriately be revised, rather than that it should be necessary in conditions of relatively greater financial stringency to discontinue holding them altogether.
I would not go so far as to say that I welcome debates of this nature. I would say, however, that I fully understand why Senators should feel it their duty and responsibility to stress the importance of an adequate programme of in-service training for teachers and to express their concern over any reduction in the provision for such courses at any time. Of course, we are not alone in Ireland in this respect. Senators are fully aware, both from their personal contacts and their reading of the educational journals, that Ministers for Education in other European countries, and outside Europe also, are made aware of the concern of so many people over the contraction of funds for educational and cultural services at the present time. I am of the opinion that it is well that such concern should find expression and that it should contribute to the formation and promotion of a rational and objective public opinion in support of an appropriate level of expenditure required for the continued development of the educational services at all levels and in relation to a wide variety of needs.
Before concluding I should, however, emphasise that I am fully convinced of the great value and need for in-service courses for teachers and draw attention to the fact that the Estimates for 1975 include an amount of £40,000 to enable the teachers' centres to continue their activities. I would urge teachers to utilise to the full the facilities available in these centres. Although not long in existence, the centres are developing as a potent force in the in-service education of teachers: in fact their potential in this area is only beginning to be properly understood. The fact that they are controlled by teachers themselves also ensures that the skills and experience of the profession may be employed to a greater extent than ever before in the area of in-service education. The activities of the centres can be varied, informative, interesting and educative and at the same time give a very good return for the financial investment in them. These activities may include short courses, study groups and seminars on various topics. It will be my endeavour to continue to support the development of the centres to the greatest extent open to me.
May I say that it does not give me any pleasure not to be able to offer any hope of the continuation of the specific work to which the Senator referred. He mentioned the fact that I had been associated with it. The Department of Education this year have had to cut their overall requirements and in-service training was an area in which this was possible as there were in that area few unavoidable commitments. If I were to be given more money I could do all these things. I was asked to cut back and this is one of the results of that cut-back. I am sorry I cannot offer Senator Martin, for whose work in regard to this matter I have a high respect, any suggestion for an improvement in that situation this year. I welcome his comments and I hope that they will lead to an informed opinion which will demand from our public opinion which will demand from our public funds the proper provision of adequate moneys for educational services in the future.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 25th April, 1975.