asked the Minister for Education if, in view of the hardship caused to untrained national teachers over 53 years of age by his recent decision to exclude them from the proposed crash courses for training and to limit them to two salary increments of £35 per year, he will consider putting these teachers, all of whom have up to thirty years' service, on to the scale of salary appropriate to trained teachers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Untrained National Teachers.
40.
I cannot agree that in the case of a teacher experience can be regarded as a substitute for training. I cannot, therefore, accept that untrained teachers should purely on the basis of length of service be given the scale of salary appropriate to trained teachers. I might add that claims and proposals relating to the salaries of national teachers in general or particular categories of national teachers are dealt with exclusively through the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for these teachers.
I think the Minister said that these teachers could not be regarded as trained unless they engaged in some training course?
That is correct.
Surely it should be enough to have been a teacher for 30 or 35 years? They should be regarded as being well trained and competent now.
Alternatively, one might say that if you had teachers teaching for 30 years, you would not need any training scheme for teachers.
That is a non sequitur.
It is not. Why have any training scheme?
The Minister had better get some zombies or astrologers to advise him.
The logical thing would be to sack them. As long as the Minister needed them, he had them. Surely after 35 years, they could get something more in the way of increments than £35, merely because they are over 53?
What course could they be trained in after 35 years?
The Deputy would be surprised.
Thirty-five years' experience is not half as good as six months in a training college.
(Interruptions.)
If the Deputy will allow me to finish, firstly, the training course for national teachers at present is a two-year course, and not six months. Secondly, it is clearly better to have a teacher who has had training and experience than a teacher with only experience and no training. Most of our teachers are trained and have got, or are getting, experience. It is not logical, to my mind, to equate the two. One must make some distinction between those who are trained and those who are not.
Why?
I have already explained it and if the Deputy does not understand it, I cannot go over it again. We are making efforts to meet this problem by providing a training service for these teachers, starting in the present year, but the matter has not been finally completed and is at present before conciliation.
Would the Minister not agree that some of these people by reason of their experience would be quite capable of teaching in the training college?
No.
How did the Minister arrive at 53 years?
Because it is designed to secure ten years' service from these teachers when they are trained before they retire.
That is going backwards.
Could the Minister give any idea of the number of untrained teachers over 53 years?
I would require notice of that.
Did I hear the Minister say that this was not finally concluded and that the amount and the number of increments was still being considered?
The final arrangements for the scheme have not yet been made. The matter is still at conciliation level.
There is hope for them still?
The scheme is not finally fixed yet.