Richard Bruton
Ceist:1 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Education and Science the proportion of payroll costs for primary and secondary teachers that covers in-service training; and whether he has set a target to increase this. [21710/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Priority Questions. - In-Service Training for Teachers.
In the present year, following an additional allocation which I have provided by way of a Supplementary Estimate, the provision for in-service training is equivalent to approximately 0.7 per cent of the total payroll for first and second level teachers. This compares to 0.6 per cent in 1996.
In addition, the Deputy will be aware I have recently announced a major investment in information and communications technology —"Schools IT 2000". This will include a very substantial training and support element, additional to the present in-service initiatives. This will bring the total in-service provision in 1998 to approximately 0.8 per cent of payroll.
I have provided a total of £10.4 million for in-service training for 1998. This includes £3 million in respect of targeted information technology training. This total represents a 21 per cent increase over the projected outturn of £8.6 million for 1997 and a 58 per cent increase over the £6.6 million which was allocated for in-service training in the 1997 Estimates. I consider that these figures represent a substantial increase in the level of funding being provided for in-service training since I became Minister for Education and Science.
It is important to highlight that a very extensive programme of in-service training is supported by my Department across a wide range of subjects and activities involving large numbers of first and second level teachers every year.
In 1996, the last full year for which data are available, a total of over 190,000 participant training days were provided at first and second levels. The introduction of all new or revised curricula and programmes is accompanied by appropriate in-service training. In addition, specialised programmes are provided in a number of areas, including, for example, in-school management, special education and relationships and sexuality education. An extensive programme of summer courses is also supported.
I assure the Deputy that I will be doing everything possible to secure additional funding, as necessary, for in-service training, to ensure that all curricular reform and appropriate professional development programmes for teachers are adequately resourced.
Is the Minister not ashamed to tell the House that the provision for in-service training is 0.7 per cent? Less than 1 per cent of the payroll is devoted to training the teachers who are to resource the next generation of young people. Is he not ashamed given that he, among other Ministers, never ceases to lecture industry on the need to achieve not 1 per cent but 5 per cent of payroll as the standard amount industry should invest in training its staff to meet the challenges of a modern economy? Surely it is more important to resource our teachers.
The Deputy should put questions to the Minister.
Those are questions.
The rate is 0.8 per cent for 1998, not 0.7 per cent. The Deputy asked if I am ashamed. I have been in office for six months. If anyone should feel ashamed, it is the Deputy and his party, who were in Government for the last three years. The figures presented to me in July are that Government's figures. I have increased the amount to 0.8 per cent.
I accept the Deputy's general point. In-service training is essential for teachers in the changing world of education. I am committed to teacher development, and we are providing over £10 million in 1998 for it. The value for money is very positive in education when compared to industry. The cost is estimated at £38 per person per day for teachers while the estimate is £150 to £200 per person in the private sector.
Teachers are extremely committed to professional development, which is very important. All Members must acknowledge that without the support of the EU and the community support framework, this area would be at a very low ebb. Under the operational programme for 1994 to 1999, over £40 million will have been provided by the EU for in-service training. The significant element in the Estimates regarding in-service training is £3 million under a new subhead for "Schools IT 2000". That is Exchequer money that does not come from Europe and is a significant development.
I am committed to ongoing in-service training for teachers and to meet new needs in changing curricula and programmes.
Does the Minister accept that the Estimates he published recently indicate a cut of 14 per cent in the provision of mainstream in-service training? That cut has been imposed when it is proposed to radically reform the primary curriculum. Was it an oversight that the Minister failed to indicate targets for beyond 1998, when the core EU funding the Minister mentioned could come under threat? What is the Minister's target for percentage of payroll in 1999 and 2000?
I am not approaching the matter that way. I am dealing with the changes that are emerging and the new curriculum needed by the inner schools——
That is why the Minister is cutting back.
——as well as all other new programmes that are introduced have sufficient in-service training. We are not cutting back. I have already told the Deputy that there is an increase of 58 per cent in the 1998 provision for in-service training on the original provision made by the previous Government.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
The last administration's provision was much less.
The Minister should read his Estimates.
The Deputy seems to imply that IT training is somehow not mainstream in-service training, which it is. IT is a core part of what should be taught in every school. I reject the approach which holds that in-service training in information and communications technology is marginal to the education process or to the learning environment. The Deputy referred to 14 per cent; if one removes the £3 million for IT training, it relates to outturn. I brought in a significant Supplementary Estimate to cover that last week. It dealt with the relationships and sexuality programme area. We will continue work in that and other areas such as new subjects for leaving certificate and primary level curriculum changes also.