asked the Minister for Education why the Benincasa course is not subject to the approval of his Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Montessori Diploma.
40.
I assume that the Deputy is referring to the course for the award of the Montessori diploma.
In that connection, I would refer him to my reply of 9th May, 1973, to a similar question.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say if there has been any development since then as regards the Department's proposed recognition of the Montessori course?
The position is that the Department's primary inspectors who are the Minister's expert advisers in relation to this matter have advised against recognition on a number of grounds, which I could, if the Deputy wishes, summarise. As regards developments since, I think one important factor is the development in relation to the recognition for degree purposes of the existing primary teachers training course. This will have a considerable effect on the standard which will be required in relation to the preparation of primary teachers which would in turn affect the standard that would be applied in deciding any question regarding the recognition of the Montessori course for primary teaching training.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary state for the record the reasons why the experts refuse to recognise?
The grounds on which the primary inspectors of the Department advised on this matter are as follows:—
(a) The new curriculum for primary schools has been designed in accordance with modern ideas on child development to provide them with the kind of variety of opportunities they require to achieve the fullest personal development. It takes account of the results of educational research, especially in the fields of language teaching and mathematics, and urges the adoption by teachers of a flexible, eclectic approach to teaching methods. The Montessori teacher is trained exclusively in accordance with the principles of education and teaching methods formulated by Dr. Montessori. This rather rigid dependence on one approach to teaching is contrary to the spirit of the new curriculum. The difference between the two approaches is so pronounced that it is not considered that both could operate side by side in an ordinary national school without creating confusion for both teachers and pupils.
(b) It is considered that the Montessori system allows excessive freedom to pupils to chose what subjects appeal to them, that there is excessive individualism with corresponding lack of emphasis on the pupil's place as a member of society.
(c) There are doubts about its efficacy in language teaching and in the teaching of mathematics.
(d) The equipment necessary is very expensive, and
(e) The academic content of the training course has not been demonstrated to be on the level obtaining in the training colleges for national teachers.
This is the professional advice of those competent to advise the Minister on such matters and I hope that in setting it out in this way as requested by Deputy Andrews it will prove helpful to those concerned, including the Deputy.
I must compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the information he has given the House and I appreciate it.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. FitzGerald, made a specific promise to the authorities in the Montessori school that their course would receive recognition if the Coalition Government were elected? Is this another broken promise?
I have no specific knowledge of the statement referred to by the Deputy but I have outlined the position of the Minister for Education in regard to this matter. The whole question is receiving the most serious attention possible as I am sure the Deputy would wish.
Does the Minister for Education agree with the findings of the experts?
I have indicated the present position and I think it is clear enough.
A promise was made and should be fulfilled.