Vol. 388 No. 6
asked the Minister for Education whether she accepts that it is essential that there be proper provision for a remedial service in all second level schools; and, in particular, if it is desirable that every post-primary school be provided with at least one remedial teacher.
32.
(Limerick East) asked the Minister for Education whether she accepts that it is essential that there be proper provision for a remedial service in all second level schools; and, in particular, if it is desirable that every post-primary school be provided with at least one remedial teacher ex quota or where agreement can be secured, that provision be made for a remedial teacher on a shared basis.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 32 together.
I consider that priority in the provision of remedial education must be given to schools on the basis of greatest need. To this end, my Department allocated some 237ex quota remedial posts in post-primary schools in the last ten years. A further 55 ex quota posts to be used either as remedial or guidance above ordinary guidance were also allocated by my Department. In addition, many post-primary schools employ teachers within their approval quotas who have been trained in the area of remedial education.
While there are no immediate proposals to allocate further ex quota remedial posts in post-primary schools, this is a matter which will be kept under review in the light of prevailing circumstances. In the meantime, any proposal from schools to share an existing ex quota remedial teacher will be favourably considered by my Department.
Will the Minister accept that, for example, surveys undertaken by the Teachers Union of Ireland and the community and comprehensive schools association of parents illustrate that in that sector a number of schools that previously enjoyed the services of a remedial teacher have lost it as a direct result of decisions taken by her, and because of decisions directly taken by her far fewer students now have access to remedial education than two years ago?
I am aware of those surveys, I have received them and my Department are looking at them, but here I wish to refute something strongly. The Government made it very clear that existing remedial or ex quota resources, or whatever terminology one puts on those teaching positions, were to remain in place under whatever changes were brought in the pupil-teacher ratio.
Is the Minister now saying that the reduction of part of the service which she quoted in 23 per cent of schools and so forth, is now a function of decisions by the VECs? Is she saying the fault does not lie with her but with the VECs who are responsible for such a reduction? Is that what she is saying?
It was Deputy Birmingham who brought up the matter of the survey. I said I was aware of it and had received it.
That makes three of us.
In the allocation of posts to VEC committees, community schools or any post primary schools the in situ remedial posts were judged by the Department to be necessary and were left in place.
Would the Minister accept that the inevitable consequence of a decision to disimprove the pupil-teacher ratio in the public sector was that students would have reduced access to remedial education, that this was happening in the sector most in need of that service and that there was no other possible result from the decisions she took?
I do not accept that. We made it very clear to the schools which had extra-quota remedial teachers that those posts remained with the schools. VEC committees receive an allocation of teachers but we made it very clear that their ex quota posts remained in regard to remedial teachers.
They do not teach maths.
A question from Deputy Jim Higgins. I did not see him in his usual place.
As a former post-primary teacher, would the Minister not agree that the whole situation in relation to remedial teaching is pathetic, that we have hundreds of post-primary schools which have no remedial teachers, that we have thousands of children languishing today at the back of classes who simply cannot cope with the gymnastics of the group certificate, the intermediate certificate or the leaving certificate and who derive absolutely no benefit from the existing curriculum — they are totally demoralised — and that there is need to leave out the jargon and get down to an immediate review designed to do something positive about this sector which is totally discriminated against?
Many things are desirable in education. One does not need to have been a teacher to know that. One could constantly improve. We can only do our very best within the existing resourses. I am very glad that existing posts for remedial teachers were enabled under the national plan to be left intact. However, I take the point the Deputy is making and one constantly seeks to improve within the available budget the position of the disadvantaged child or student in the educational system.
