As far back as 1974 it was proposed by the Department of Education and Science that the award of art teacher certificate on the results of the technical schools examinations in art be abolished. However, arising from an almost unbelievable level of incompetence, mismanagement and mistakes, the system persisted and has yet to be finally resolved.
In October 1999, in a letter to the Department of Education and Science, one of my constituents set out clearly the case that she had been making over many years. In effect, she was admitted to a course, sat the appropriate examinations and passed the teacher qualifying course. It was a reasonable assumption on her part that she was entitled to be considered qualified. However, in a reply to her, the then Minister stated that her assumption had pre-supposed that anyone who was admitted to such a course met all the requirements of entry. The Minister admits that human error had a part to play in the 1972 case. He admits that colleges admitted students and that his Department was not involved on the interview board. In effect, what the Minister was saying was that a mistake was made by the college or Department and that the applicant was to be punished for this mistake.
The consequences of these mistakes for the teachers of art at the time was that they were considered to be unqualified and did not qualify for permanent appointment or for advancement on the incremental salary scale. There was bungling in the management of the recording of results and in the placing of advertisements in national newspapers to allow potential candidates to apply for additional courses and there was failure to attach examinations to any particular course or curriculum, failure to provide a syllabus for the principles of teaching of art and failure to communicate results to students in a structured way.
It is of some note that Ciaran Benson, an expert in this area, stated in his book The Place of Art in Irish Education as follows:
Until recently the strangest anomaly in Irish teacher training must have been the Technical School examinations. Examinations could be taken by anyone who paid the examination fee. Examinations could be taken in any order – advanced examinations before intermediate examinations.
Others in the professional area had similar views.
The response of the Department was to offer to provide a course in Sligo in 1977. The course was not provided and a further three years elapsed without progress. A later promise to hold another course was also broken. The litany of farce continued, with contradictions, inequalities and failure on the part of the Department to provide or structure any reasonable offer to people trapped in this quandary. The people who have been trapped in the quagmire of bungling and bureaucracy are surely now entitled to a full inquiry.
It is useful to note, in the context of freedom of information, that a document from a Department official dated November 2001 notes the following
There is no doubt that the situation as portrayed was less than adequate in some cases, e.g. the recording of results, the absence of a definite syllabus in the principles of teaching art before 1975, the delay in responding to articulated needs in the late 70s, the conflicting demands stated for entrance to the proposed course in 1981 to overcome the problems associated with existing requirements needed to qualify under memo v31 and the fact that such a course was not provided then or in subsequent years. This was the responsibility of the key personnel involved at that time and the department should apologise for this.
This debate does not need further airing. The wrong that has been done to these teachers should be rectified and due recognition should be given to those who suffered for many years because of the bungling of the Department. The net outcome is that these people could not be made permanent and were not on an incremental scale. They have suffered for many years as a result.
