Vol. 459 No. 7
4 Mr. Martin asked the Minister for Education if she is prepared to undertake an independent survey of teachers' working time in and out of school to facilitate a more informed understanding of the role of the teacher in the modern Irish education system. [16438/95]
I am fully aware that the work of teachers involves a considerable input outside strict class contact hours. I appreciate and value the extent of the commitment by many teachers, both in and out of school, to their work as educators.
In the case of primary teachers their daily class contact time is 5 hours and 40 minutes, less a half hour recreation, for 183 days of the year. In the case of second-level teachers class contact is a maximum of 22 hours per week and schools operate for 167 days of the year.
The salary levels of teachers and the structure of the teaching week acknowledge that time is needed outside of the classroom for a teacher to fulfil her or his role. This is a matter which is relevant to the ongoing discussions between my Department, the teacher unions and the managerial bodies in the context of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
I am aware of newspaper reports that the Irish National Teachers' Organisation carried out a survey regarding time spent by its members on school-related activities outside their formal teaching duties. My Department has not yet received a copy of this survey.
The role of the teacher has been clearly articulated in the consultative process leading to the White Paper, including the National Education Convention. In the circumstances, I consider that a survey such as that suggested by the Deputy would have little to add to an understanding of the teacher's role.
I tabled this question because in every school staff room there is considerable anger at the manner in which the "time in school" circular was introduced, accompanied by hints, nods, winks and leaks from various people to the effect that teachers were not doing their job or had a short week. Teachers now feel there is a lack of appreciation of the effective and important extra-curricular activity in which they engage, such as the provision of drama, sport, debating activities, school tours and other activities outside school hours. The shabby introduction of the "time in school" circular damaged the traditional voluntary commitment by teachers, undermined their professional integrity and damaged their morale. Is the Minister still intent on rigidly adhering to a "clock in, clock out" mentality which, if pursued further, will ultimately end in the ruination of a valuable resource to the education system?
I value the work of the teaching profession. The communication was not "through nods and winks". That is an extraordinary way to describe the operation of communication between the Department of Education and its schools.
It was an extraordinary method of communication.
In that circular, we secured the school year and established the length of the school day. We did not add one moment to that which was already negotiated in the Department of Education. The circular confirmed the minimum number of days teaching per school year — 183 out of 365 days in the case of primary schools, 167 out of 365 days in second level schools. It defined the duration of a full day and a half day. It emphasised the role and responsibility of managerial authorities and — most importantly — the need to keep parents informed well in advance of the school calendar. It referred to some six days available to schools for school related activities outside teaching days but stated that this matter was relevant to the ongoing negotiations under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
The overall approach taken by the Department is as I have outlined. Why are teacher unions being told, apparently off the record, by departmental officials that the "time in school" circular is essentially a dead letter and is not being implemented?
I invite Deputy Martin to give evidence to me to uphold the remarks he has made about officials in the Department of Education.
I have my sources of information which, like the Minister's party leader, I must jealously guard. That is the view being aired and it is being said that the "time in school" circular is effectively a dead letter. In the ongoing negotiations will the Minister make provision for payment to teachers in the future for time they put in outside of their class contact hours? Will they be entitled to claim for that?
This questioning is going on too long.
I am disappointed at the level and source of information being transmitted by the spokesperson of education from the major Opposition party.
I stand over it.
Let us hear the Minister.
The circular was issued by the Department of Education. For the information of parents in particular, it established the school year and the length of half days and full days. It referred to the six extra days available in the school calendar which were not subject to the "time in school" circular and relate to the extra time the Deputy suggests one should acknowledge. However, that is subject to talks on the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
Far be it from any Minister for Education to question the professionalism of the teaching profession. In common with other professions, the class contact time is not the measurement used in how we remunerate teachers. We know that like other professionals they must work outside the classroom to ensure their position as professionals will meet the high standards they set themselves.
The "time in school" circular imposed nothing new. It repeated the length of the school year and the school day for the benefit of the managerial bodies and school workers and asked that parents in particular would be informed well in advance of the calendar of their local school year. I assure the Deputy that the circular will be implemented. There were some initial difficulties about school transport and school openings and as we said to the schools at the time we would deal with them on a one to one basis for particular difficulties which arose last September. We know they will not arise next September because the detail of the circular is available to all as they start next January to timetable the schools for September 1996. I consider that I should give them that assurance rather than one by the Deputy to take little or no notice of what is contained in circulars issued by the Department of Education.
I am not alone in not taking any notice of those circulars.
