Vol. 401 No. 6
8 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Education the arrangements she intends to make regarding the availability of permanent in-service training for teachers at post primary level apart from those provisions already made in regard to the junior cycle.
10 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Education the arrangements she intends to make regarding the availability of permanent in-service training for teachers at post primary level apart from those provisions already made in regard to the junior cycle.
66 Mr. Timmons asked the Minister for Education the arrangements she intends to make regarding the availability of permanent in-service training for teachers at post-primary level apart from those provisions already made in regard to the junior cycle.
70 Mr. Crowley asked the Minister for Education the arrangements she intends to make regarding the availability of permanent in-service training for teachers at post-primary level apart from those provisions already made in regard to the junior cycle.
72 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Education the arrangements she intends to make regarding the availability of permanent in-service training for teachers at post-primary level apart from those provision already made in regard to the junior cycle.
75 Mrs. Barnes asked the Minister for Education the arrangements she intends to make regarding the availability of permanent in-service training for teachers at post-primary level apart from those provisions already made in regard to the junior cycle.
92 Mr. Carey asked the Minister for Education the arrangements she intends to make regarding the availability of permanent in-service training for teachers at post primary level apart from those provisions already made in regard to the junior cycle.
97 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Education the arrangements she intends to make regarding the availability of permanent in-service training for teachers at post primary level apart from those provisions already made in regard to the junior cycle.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 10, 66, 70, 72, 75, 92 and 97 together.
In-service training of teachers at second level has always been a permanent and integral part of my Department's educational provision.
I am fully aware of the importance of in-service training for the quality of the education service we provide in our schools. It was for this reason that I have in recent years, despite severe resource constraints, devoted substantially increased resources to inservice training. For example, the provision for post-primary inservice training in 1987 was of the order of £250,000 compared with a provision of £750,000 this year. That represents an increase of 200 per cent.
In this context, substantial resources have been devoted to in-service training relating to the introduction of the new junior certificate. I have indicated that I am setting aside two to three days in each school year over a three year period to enable all teachers of the new syllabuses to avail themselves of in-service training related to the teaching of the new programme. Three in-service days have already been held at regional locations.
In tandem with the special provision for junior certificate syllabuses, it has been possible to continue the ongoing regular programme of inservice courses.
Quite apart from all this, I am at present giving consideration to future in-service needs. At my request, officials of my Department have had discussions with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment about the scope and form of a major review of in-service training. I would expect that concrete proposals for such a review will be submitted for my approval in the near future.
I thank the Minister for a comprehensive reply. Rapid changes have taken place. Many teachers do not avail of the training course that is available. It should be compulsory at junior cycle as we have a lot of older teachers who are not abreast of the changes that have taken place and thus the children are not getting a fair opportunity.
We must proceed by way of question.
I was not aware that this training programme was available. It should be compulsory for teachers, in fairness to the children.
The Deputy is making a statement rather than asking a question.
This is a very important subject. We should ensure that there are not teachers in employment who are incapable of doing the job. Would the Minister consider making this course compulsory?
I know that the Deputy's question is well intentioned but in fact these courses are compulsory at junior certificate level. They are run during the term and days are given from school days. All the teachers participate in them. The Deputy's wish is already being met in relation to those courses.
Will the Minister agree that by international standards, notwithstanding this one off measure with regard to the junior certificate, our financial commitment to in-service education for teachers is and has been one of the lowest in Europe, under successive Governments? Will the Minister accept in this context that we might consider looking for European Community aid for in-service training for teachers, establishing an in-service educational council so that the different types of in-service course that are being provided by different bodies are properly co-ordinated and time tabled, and making provision for in-service training for principals including the newly appointed lay principles to many secondary schools who need training in management as distinct from training in education?
At the European meeting about which I spoke in the reply, I suggested that a portion of the European Social Fund should be given to in-service courses for teachers. That suggestion was agreeably received by the Council of Ministers. It has now gone to Commissioner Papandreu for her consideration and implementation. I asked the NCCA to carry out a major review last April because I was not happy that the content and the range of course which we were providing would fit the bill in today's terms and I wanted to ensure that we got value for our money. The proposals they come up with could well embody an inservice council. I will have a report from them. With regard to the question relating to principals I asked my colleague, Deputy Bertie Ahern, to consider having the IMI and the Department of Education jointly run a course for principals. I was thinking particularly about principals on boards of management of primary schools because the boards of management fall due to be reappointed in October. I have suggested that he and I should consider jointly running management courses, as distinct from in-service teaching courses. I should like to tell the Deputy that the amount of money has been increased by 200 per cent but I accept that it is not at the level of other countries.
With regard to the amount of money the Minister suggested was spent in the last financial year, how much of it was for the payment of substitutes for the teachers who were absent? Will the Minister agree that the very heavy restrictions on management in the day-to-day running of schools as a result of the cutbacks are due an overhaul? Will the Minister agree that vice-principals should be given the opportunity to spend the same amount of time as they formerly spent in management rather than in teaching? Will the Minister agree that career guidance teachers should be restored to the positions they held when they were not counted within the quota as teachers?
The Deputy is putting very long questions.
Will the Minister accept that this has reduced the effectiveness and efficiency of schools and that in-service training will not be effective unless the structures within the schools can function?
Sin ceist eile agus ceist eile, and I will not reply to them. I do not have the breakdown as to the amount paid for travelling, attendance and so on, but I will get the information for the Deputy.
