Deputy McMahon has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of the recruitment of teachers.
Adjournment Debate. - Recruitment Of Teachers.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for permitting this question. I put down a Private Notice Question earlier but it was disallowed as the Ceann Comhairle did not think it satisfied the criterion of urgency. I took the opportunity of pointing out after Question Time that the Ceann Comhairle was misinterpreting what I was trying to do or was probably misinformed. I am not blaming the Department or anybody for that.
The circular letter I referred to in my question was sent out on 14 May. The matter has become urgent over the last few days. It was acceptable on 14 May and there would not have been another word about it if the Department had moved quickly to give the allocations to the various committees. As the allocations were not given, it has transpired in the last few days that teachers selected by VEC selection boards cannot be appointed. This is causing a very serious problem. It causes problems at interview stage for some teachers because many of them apply for more than one position. When they do an interview they are unaware a week or a fortnight later, even though they know they were successful — I admit that they should not know but it is common knowledge that teachers know if they were successful because word leaks out — whether they will be appointed. This is holding up the work of the interview boards.
We have enough problems without being held up by the Department. As a member of a VEC committee we find it extremely difficult to bring selection boards together. I am sure the Minister and the Department have received many complaints not only in the area of VEC appointments but also appointments to other schools. It is not unknown for me to be called three times in the one day to know if I would be available the following week for a selection board. That goes for the entire membership of the VEC. Even when boards are set up and there is agreement about the date and so on, when the day comes someone has opted out.
The Minister should look at this area. I am sure the Minister is well aware of directive No. CL 33/82 which was sent out on 14 May in which it is stated that no steps should be taken for the appointment of teachers to either new or replacement posts until the allocations have been determined. This is the crucial point. The allocations have not been determined and, therefore, the appointment of teachers cannot take place. I regret this. It is causing great inconvenience. It is causing serious problems in two areas of my constituency, in Firhouse where we are starting a new community college of 1,000 pupils in September this year and in Willington where we are starting a new community college. Both colleges are in course of erection and those connected with the building of them are working overtime to ensure that they are ready to commence in September. It is almost 1 July and the principal has not yet been appointed. The Minister must take a serious look at the situation.
Both selection boards have met and made their recommendation to the school boards. Both school boards have accepted the recommendation but the teachers cannot be informed and, therefore, cannot notify the schools in which they are working at present. This means that advertising the vacancies which will be created in the other schools by the filling of these posts will be held up. This should not be allowed to continue for any longer than midnight tonight and I ask the Minister to take steps to ensure that this is so. Not only should we be appointing principals on 1 July but they should be appointed on 1 January where new schools are commencing on 1 September. We did this in the case of Springfield in Tallaght. Without casting any reflection on the performance of other schools, the performance in that school can be highly commended and it is due partly to the fact that the principal was appointed in good time. A principal has to make out a programme for the year. It is frightening to have the responsibility of starting a 1,000 pupil school in September. In one case there are 110 pupils enrolled which is a disadvantage for any school which is starting. I prefer to see the number at 70 or 80 for the first year to give the school a chance.
We have two people appointed for both schools but neither can give notice to the school they are presently working in and neither can take up the appointment to get Firhouse and Willington off the ground. This is a vitally important matter. Perhaps it would be acceptable in an area where there would not be as great an intake. In Firhouse and Willington there was need last year and the previous year for such schools and the intake this year and in succeeding years will be greater than is desirable.
I do not wish to delay the Minister. I know he has had a hard and somewhat disappointing day and I am sure he is anxious to have some discussions about that. I plead with him to announce the allocations and have it in the hands of the VECs tomorrow or the next day at the very latest so that these appointments can take place. It is not such a bad situation if it is the case of a principal taking over a school that is already in operation, but I am confident that the Minister with his interest in education will realise the great disadvantage for these schools by reason of not being able to appoint principals. You have given me permission to bring into the debate the matter of the selection boards, and I trust that the Minister will have regard to this matter also. However, the problem this evening relates to the directive of May 14.
I recognise the concern which led Deputy McMahon to bring this matter before the House. It is important that we should try to make in good time arrangements for teaching posts and so on so that we might provide the best opportunities possible for pupils. In particular I recognise the sort of knock-on effect of being late in making some appointments and then having teachers changing posts. This can result in being well into the new school year before replacements are appointed in some other schools along the line from which teachers have moved.
The basic reason for the delay arises from the manner in which allocations are determined. Each committee are expected to make a return to the Department showing their pupil numbers, details of various courses and so on. This enables the Department to determine the number of teaching posts that should be sanctioned for the new school year. In the case of 1982-83, for instance, the schools were asked to make their returns by the middle of December 1981 in the case of third-level courses and by the middle of January 1982 in the case of second-level courses. Had those returns been furnished in reasonably good time the Department would have been in a position some time ago to settle the allocations. However, what happened was that the final returns for second-level courses were not received until the end of last month — 27 May — and in so far as third-level courses were concerned, it is regrettable that returns are still outstanding at least in the case of one college. Happily, most of the latecomers have managed to furnish the information.
The Deputy might well ask why I could not give the go-ahead in at least some areas earlier, but I will return to that in a few minutes. The essential reason is that before allocations can be decided for any one committee we must consider the overall funding that is available for additional posts and there must be some allocation made of any additional staff as between the requests from the various committees, 38 in all. That is the reason for the Department having always held back the determination of the new teaching quotas for the coming school year until such time as all committees had furnished the information. It became apparent that although we were not in a position to decide the allocations, the various committees were going ahead and advertising posts. That was understandable in a number of instances, but had there been simply a general acceptance of that situation there could have arisen the danger that the total number of posts filled would exceed the number which the Department could authorise. That was a danger that had to be averted for two reasons. First, some signs have emerged in recent years of a number of committees exceeding the total number of staffing posts to which they were entitled. When that happens the situation becomes difficult in terms of clawing back those excess appointments in later years. Secondly, there is a reason for not allowing any excess to emerge in the current year because, as the House knows, we are conscious of the rather restrictive financial climate in which we must operate. Speakers from the other side of the House would be the first to lecture us were we to permit any excess expenditure to emerge.
The point is that these principals have to be appointed.
I shall come to that in a moment. I am talking about the general reason for the delay in fixing the allocations and I am stressing the point that the Department were not willing to give any sort of general approval for additional teaching posts until the necessary information became available. If the Department were simply to allow piecemeal sanctions to go ahead there would be a real danger of excess expenditure arising and many people, both inside this House and outside, would then consider it proper to lecture the Government in general and myself in particular for permitting such a situation to arise. In the circumstances of this year I consider it proper to try to being home to the committees that we must live within the budget allocations for the current year. That will not be an easy task. For that reason we have to stress that committees could not simply take it on themselves to make the appointments.
Having said that, I recognise the difficulties that can emerge in certain instances especially in relation to the staffing of a new school. My understanding is that in a number of instances and particularly in the two to which Deputy McMahon referred permission was given for the appointment initially of principals and vice-principals and that while sanction for the filling of the other teaching posts had not been given, that sanction is now going out. What has happened is that since information came in, the allocations for regional and technical colleges were issued on the 9th of this month. That meets one part of the requirement. The general allocation for second-level is only now being issued. I assure the Deputy that is going out.
Does that mean that they are being sent out today or tomorrow?
They will be dispatched tomorrow, though the earliest ones may have been dispatched. It is more correct to say that they are being issued and should be distributed by tomorrow. I recognise that this is late in a school year, but given the system under which we operate that type of situation must inevitably arise if schools are tardy in furnishing the returns which they are required to furnish.
There is no point in the Minister trying to shift the blame.
It is right to shift the blame and it is wrong that we should have some of the practices under which we must labour. I will not allow myself to be diverted now into giving a number of examples, but it is correct to fix the blame where it properly belongs. If schools and committees do not furnish the information that is required of them, and especially if they are five or six months late in furnishing that information, they should be expected to suffer some hardship or delay as a result.
An area in which I shall ascertain if better arrangements can be made for future years is in the case of new schools, because I do not think that these can be blamed for the shortcomings of existing institutions. If a new school has been sanctioned it should be possible to say as a first charge that staff must be provided and that that type of allocation should be issued in good time. I would like to explore the possibility that for those existing schools and colleges who furnish their returns on time we could devise a system for authorising their approved posts. If that means that the latecomers lose out and do not get a fair share of extra posts, that is their fault. I believe in letting the guilty ones take their punishment and not having the innocent parties suffer alongside the guilty ones. I would be quite willing to explore the possibility of devising some alternative arrangement which would distinguish between the innocent and guilty parties in this area.
One complicating matter is that a two-stage process is involved in fixing this staffing arrangement of colleges. First there is the process of establishing the number of posts which a school or college may create and fill on the basis of their pupil data. Secondly — this is the complicating factor — there is the requirement for the committee as a whole to live within the financial allocation available to them. In times of rapidly changing money values, severe inflation and so forth, a committee may not be able to find the money to permit every school or college to appoint the full number of staff to which they might be properly entitled. In other words, there is a requirement to tailor the number of appointments within the budgetary allocation. This is the complicating factor which must be taken into account if one is to devise some sort of differential issuing of approval for appointments in various committees. I would be quite happy to explore the possibility of introducing such a differential arrangement in future years.
I hope that what I have said helps to explain why the delay occurred. I repeat the assurance that the staffing numbers for all the second level colleges are now being issued; in other words they will have been dispatched no later than tomorrow. In the case of the two new colleges to which Deputy McMahon referred, the authorisation of the principal and vice-principal posts has been approved recently, I am informed.
It must have been since Monday because the board met on Monday and while they accepted the recommendation they could not notify the people involved.
I will check the exact date, but my understanding was that it had already been approved. The other point which Deputy McMahon raised, which is not really a matter for tonight, is the question of selection committees and whether we can devise a more convenient set of arrangements in that area. We need to look at the various demands and pressures which the very rapid growth of education has placed not simply on school resources, teachers and so on, but also on the many other dedicated people. It is right to recognise the tremendous input of time, effort, thought and general commitment which the community get from their unrecognised and frequently unsung members who would include public representatives such as Deputy McMahon who have to give so much of their time to helping the committees to fill their posts and to discharge the many other responsibilities placed on them. I will certainly explore the possibilities for improvement along those lines.
I welcome the Minister's statement even at this late stage, but can I take it that he will take steps to ensure that principals are not caught up in this net in future? It may not be his responsibility next year, but surely he can do something now to ensure that principals of new schools will be appointed in January of the year when the school is due to start in September.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 July 1982.