Deputy Quill gave me notice of her intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the crisis in second level schools because of the failure of the Department to make proper provision for the junior certificate.
Adjournment Debate. - New Junior Certificate Course.
The introduction of the new junior certificate course into all of our second level schools in September 1989 and the consequent abolition of the intermediate certificate and group certificate examinations mark a major landmark in the development of Irish education. This is a long overdue and long sought for educational reform. In fairness it must be said that the Minister must be complimented on advancing the matter to this stage and bringing it to the point where the courses are now designed and ready for implementation. This ought to be a time of great enthusiasm among educationists and a time of great hope for parents and students alike but, unfortunately, that is not so. What is beginning to emerge at this stage is that it is becoming a time of deep disquiet and grave apprehension for all those involved in the introduction of the new course.
This anxiety and apprehension arise mainly from the refusal of the Minister to apply herself to the practical implications of putting the new programme in place in the schools. I want to say to the Minister here tonight that there is no way a major educational reform of this magnitude can be brought about without the provision of a substantial investment in the first and subsequent years of the new programme. The requirements are basic and very straightforward. They fall into three categories: there is a need for adequate in-service training for the workforce; there is a need to make provision for basic essential classroom equipment; and there is a need to put in place a mechanism to oversee the successful introduction and development of the new curriculum.
In relation to in-service training I fully accept that the Minister has already made some provision but clearly the provision made is not enough. The Minister must look at her workforce in the same manner as any manager about to embark on the introduction of new technology into his plant would look at his workforce.
Into her plant or her workforce.
In any event, there is no way that any successful or progressive manager of either gender would dream of considering the introduction of new technology without first making provision for intensive in-service training for the members of his or her staff. In the case of the Minister's secretary, if she is in the process of introducing a new work practice or new equipment into her office, one of the first things she must do before bringing in the equipment or introducing the new practice is to send her secretary away for some in-service training. That is what any sensible person would do in the times in which we are living. If this is done in the case of people who are dealing with hardware or software, how much more important is it that this intensive training should be provided for those in the workforce who deal with our children and with the formation of the next generation.
In a nutshell what I am saying is that in-service training must be provided not alone pre the introduction of the course but on an on-going basis especially during the first three years leading to the first public examination in 1992. There is a good deal of opinion as to how that should be done and the Minister is in receipt of a number of very solid and good suggestions from practitioners in the field. Much of the in-service training ought to take place within schools or among groups of subject teachers on a localised basis. There is much merit in appointing department heads with posts of responsibility in different subject areas to spearhead the introduction of the courses into schools, to monitor the progress within schools and to act as liaison people between an individual school, the course committees, or the inspector, or whoever that might be. In schools at present responsibility is sometimes given for very flimsy posts.
I cannot think of any reason why the Minister should not have a good look at what I am saying and allocate posts to persons who are prepared to act in that capacity within schools. That would be one way of ensuring that the new course would get off to a good start and stay on the proper course. That would be a simple mechanism and would not cost the earth. Posts already in existence could be allocated in that manner. I hope I am making the position clear.
That is the Deputy's point of view. With respect, Deputy Quill, I was a teacher. I do not agree with what you are saying but I understand what you are saying.
Thank you. That is all I want the Minister to do. The important and essential point is that the success of the curriculum will ultimately stand or fall on the skill, commitment and enthusiasm of the teachers who will be called upon to put it in place.
I now wish to move on to my second point. Equally important is the provision of basic equipment to make the new approach to subject teaching possible. I will not give a list of the equipment needed because it is much too detailed to be put into the context of this debate but I know that the joint managerial board made a full submission to the Minister outlining exactly what equipment is necessary for the implementation of the new curriculum. I believe the Minister has no option but to meet that requirement list in full. A range of new tape recorders, overhead projectors, laboratory equipment etc. must be provided in all our schools.
My clear understanding is that what is being asked for is no more than what is the criterion accepted by the Department of Education in relation to the fitting out of new schools. The joint managerial board want all schools to be given the same level of equipment as that now deemed necessary for the adequate fitting out of new schools. There is nothing unreasonable about that.
It must be admitted that some schools are infinitely better equipped than others, especially the newly built schools. Many of the community and comprehensive schools are well equipped but some of the old voluntary secondary schools are exceptionally under equipped with the kind of hardware which is so essential if the new course is to be introduced effectively and if it is to be developed effectively. That cannot be overlooked. Provision must be made for this on a per capita basis. That is the only way that is to be done. That is the second demand, that I make here this evening, that an adequate per capital grant be made to all schools to enable them to equip themselves adequately so as to be in a position to introduce this new programme effectively and efficiently into the schools.
In addition to what has been asked for by the joint managerial board, I must ask the Minister to look especially at certain schools in areas of high disadvantage. In such schools provision must be made for lending libraries so that children will have access to books from the recommended reading list. If this is not done numbers of children will have access to very little reading material since much of the reading in the language area is now optional and since the old text book approach is being virtually abandoned. If all children, whether they live in areas of high economic disadvantage or otherwise, do not have equal access to books and reading material, reading standards and, automatically, educational standards will fall significantly. There is no doubt that better off parents will be in a better position to buy books for their children but that for the less well off children, books are not a high priority. Children in those areas will suffer if the optional reading material is not made available. That can only be done through the setting up of lending libraries in schools where children can borrow the books as they would from the public library.
I would like the Minister to also put in place some kind of mechanism to oversee the workings of the new course as it develops over the first three years especially, and after. I want adequate after sales service. I was in the teaching service when the new curriculum for primary schools was introduced in 1971. That was a curriculum of great promise, a major change with great creativity being brought into primary schools. It worked exceptionally well in most cases but in some cases and in certain subject areas it worked very badly. The main reason for that was that there was no adequate after sales service, no help for teachers who had been taught in the old way and who simply were not properly initiated into the new curriculum. Because there was not enough help for them, in some cases the curriculum failed. Now we have the benefit of hindsight and it is important to ensure that that kind of thing does not happen again. It is very important that some kind of mechanism is put in place to ensure that the courses work well in all cases and in all subjects. It is equally important to ensure that if problems develop or new insignts are gained as to how a matter might be approached, there is some body there to take on board whatever is learned from the problems that arise or from the insights gained so as to put what is learnt to good advantage, to ensure that problems do not take root at the start. Very often we cannot say for certain how effective something will be until it is tested.
The new junior certificate programme will be the cornerstone of all second level education for the remainder of this century and into the next. By definition, it will be the cornerstone of all subsequent education because what happens in second level determines the standard of third level and of subsequent education. It is of prime importance that we get it right from the start. If the resources I have sought are not provided in adequate measure for the first three years especially, my fear and prediction is that standards of education in many areas will drop significantly. If that begins to happen our public education system that has a very fine tradition and a fine reputation will stand to lose. Inevitably better off parents will seek outside schools and all sorts of grinds and educational tuition for their children. Parents who cannot afford that their children will fall further behind and that will be the exact negation of much of what this new junior certificate course sets out to do. Part of the principle on which it was based was to make better provision, because of better variety, of subject matter and in the methodology of teaching for students of all ability ranges. Unless provision is made along the lines I have outlined I have grave fears that the expectations and the objectives of the curriculum will not be met.
I thank Deputy Quill for putting down this motion and the Chair for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important topic. I share the Deputy's long experience in the educational services. I compliment the Deputy on the great distinction with which she has conducted herself during her educational career. That has carried her into this House. I compliment the Deputy, too, on her contributions to educational debates. However, listening to the Deputy's demands I wondered if she is living in the real world. As a member of a Government with a duty to deal with the country in an economic sense as well as in a social and cultural sense, I have to have regard to the Estimates voted in the House. By law I am obliged to abide by those Estimates. I do not recall the attitude of the Deputy's party or of herself to the Estimates, but be that as it may, the democratic will of the House prevailed and the budget and the Estimates for 1989 were passed by this House. Therefore the demands made earlier in the House tonight and the demands now made by the Deputy cannot be acceded to immediately. I must have regard to my duties as a member of the Cabinet.
The Deputy made four demands. I acknowledge with appreciation, her tribute to my initiative in bringing these syllabi forward. The Deputy spoke of the enthusiasm which infused the educational world when those announcements were made and when we put these new syllabi in train. I well remember the day last October when the unions, the management, myself and all political parties joined in that issue when the seven syllabi were issued to all the seven schools. It is worth noting that each of the seven syllabi which went out carried the following imprimatur of the course committees and of the council of the NCCA: "These new syllabi are to be implemented within existing resources." As I say, that had the imprimatur of the then and now course committees that were composed in the main of practising teachers. This was put out under the aegis of the board who advise me on curricular matters, the National Council for Curriculum Assessment. That was passed by all the representatives involved, then passed by the council and finally issued to the schools. That is a matter of public record and it would be well to remind ourselves of that again.
It was again brought to my attention that there would be resources implications in in-services courses. To that end I sought and obtained a 124 per cent increase from the Estimate of October. When the January budget was finally printed, there was an increase from £300,000 approximately to £700,000 approximately for in-service courses. Again, that is a matter of public record.
We set up in-service committees composed of practising teachers. I met last November with the representatives of the unions to establish the make-up of the in-service committees. The Committees devised the courses themselves, which were then issued and in which 14,000 teachers have participated already on one full in-service day. There is to be another similar, or perhaps dissimilar, day — depending on what the in-service course committees now decide should be the next regime of in-service courses. That has been decided by practising teachers on the in-service committees which I have set up.
Let me totally refute the remarks made by the Deputy at the commencement of her contribution that it has not been a hands-on approach. It has been hands-on every minute of the day with regard to the implementation of the junior certificate. A substantial investment has been made in in-service and I certainly would hope that we can improve on that, adapt and amend it. If the committees want more localisation, we had regional days in which the 14,000 people participated. These were out of school days, not just from the normal in-service course. That was what the teachers wanted and again we agreed. This was correct. The teachers need their in-service days. Any suggestion that they should not get these is completely wrong. They have intimated to me that perhaps in-service might be made into a more localised issue with a more workshop rather than a lecturing theme. If these committees decide that that is the way in which the in-service courses should be run, they know their needs best. I would not like to comment on the suggestion that a post of responsibility be used in this manner. That is another matter. I do not know where that suggestion came from and am not particularly enthused about it.
I am quite satisfied that the range of in-service, and proposed range which will alter and change as needs develop, would be very suitable for the junior certificate. I most wholeheartedly and enthusiastically pledge myself to a very comprehensive, thorough and on-going range of in-service extending over three years and onward if needs be, depending always on what are the perceived needs as the courses get going and teachers and pupils see these needs and how the new methodology has developed.
The idea of lending libraries is a very good one. It is not the first time that Deputy Quill has brought this idea up here. It has appeared in oral parliamentary questions. Schools have started this in some instances on a purely voluntary basis. I have always commended the idea and this is something to which the joint managerial body or principals of schools or whatever should attach themselves, a mechanism in place to oversee the work of the course committees is a very solid idea. An overall mechanism to overview how the course committees should be proceeding or how the junior certificate operates from its inception would seem a very good idea, also, and would have a report back mechanism. I would lend my attention to that and be glad to carry it out. In most of these matters I would find myself in agreement with the Deputy. In the matter of detail we might diverge, but on the general issues there would be agreement.
We come now to the serious implication. The Deputy used the word "demand", to which I would take grave exception in any circumstances bearing in mind my public financial responsibilities. The Deputy demanded an unquantified but obviously substantial increase in per capita grant aid for resources, equipment and all sorts of other worthy objectives. In full calmness I call these worthy objectives. One could keep on throwing resources into the education system forever and still not have the perfect system. That is the eternal charm, attraction and challenge involved in the whole area of education. The Deputy knows that you can never leave a classroom feeling that you have evoked the proper response from every pupil, that every child has gone home knowing more and feeling happier and that the teacher is happy. Everybody is different and proceeds at a different rate. The whole system is constantly evolving. It is never a perfect system.
A mechanism, while being a good idea is only as good as you can manage at the time and as circumstances allow. The demand that every school in the land would, hey presto, be comparable with the finest new school with language and science laboratories and every other facility is a fine objective and I would have no quarrel with that. If I had a fairy godmother complete with wand I would wish that all 850 second level schools would be provided with shining, new, bright and burnished equipment, but then there would be some other issue at stake in education — let me continue, Deputy. I did not interrupt. I have a quarrel with a shrill demand for unspecified millions to be spent ar an bpointe so that every school is brought up to perfect standards overnight. No Minister of any Department, particularly the Department of Education, could agree to do that.
I shall shortly be meeting with the unions and we will be discussing their various concerns. I share their enthusiasm. They want these courses to go ahead, otherwise they would not have responded so magnificantly last October. They see a source of new morals and spirit in them with regard to the teachers. I see this also. I hope that we can find common ground in that cause. I am quite sure that we can and I thank Deputy Quill for her obvious commitment to the cause of education which we share.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 April 1989.