Ciara Conway (Waterford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their report this morning. Rather than repeat the issues, as there are many similar threads, I wish to tease out some of the issues that have been raised over recent weeks and years.

The responsibility for the development of Síolta and Aistear is with the Department of Education and Skills. However, it was pointed out to the committee last week that students study early childhood studies in, for example, UCC, Cork Institute of Technology, Waterford Institute of Technology, or wherever it might be. Would the witnesses envisage that those programmes could be delivered to the students who aspire to work in early years education rather than delivering it to them when they come into the workforce? I understand that there is practical implementation, but perhaps it could be done in an introductory way in order that we know the people who are coming into the workforce are familiar with, and have a working knowledge of, the curricula we want them to implement. There must be creative thinking about this. There appears to be a huge difference in the access that child care workers and early years educators have to these training programmes versus primary school teachers, who appear to have received the Rolls-Royce version of training. Perhaps the witnesses would comment on that.

On the issue of children with additional needs, do the witnesses have a view about what works? The letter we received from the Minister last week stated that there is no agreement about a model. Has the group looked at it in any way? The issue of special needs assistants has arisen from time to time. The minimum qualification for a special needs assistant is the junior certificate. It does not presuppose any developmental knowledge in terms of what is appropriate for a child or what developmental goals a child should be meeting in a preschool setting. That would concern me. My preference would be to have additional staff in the setting who are able to cater for the individual child. That is what early years education is about. The child would simply present with additional needs rather than having a disability. That is my thinking on it, and I hope the witnesses will comment on it.

The other issue is funding based on quality rather than opening it up to everyone, and that where quality standards are met, it is rewarded. That is something we struggle to do in public services all the time, but this is a watershed time for early years education and it is something we should be ambitious in trying to achieve.

There is a plethora of grants which providers can access. Has the group given any thought to combining grants in a central fund rather than adopting a piecemeal approach? I refer, in particular, to independent and community-based providers because accessing them is hugely time consuming. There is much talk about quality, but I do not think "non-contact time" is the appropriate term to use. It is important in the early years to engage a child by means of his or her interests. Staff cannot be expected to do this off the cuff because it forms an integral part of planning, arranging and implementing the curriculum in the classroom, as well as deciding what is and is not working. If we are serious about ensuring quality, the interdepartmental group should advocate for investment in the service, with particular reference to the terms and conditions of those who work in it. All studies dating back to the 1970s have found that high levels of training, as well as good relationships between children and the workers are very important.

I refer to the alarming reports that those attending early years education training courses at third level try to get out of it as quickly as possible. I do not blame them when we hear that people working in fast food outlets are being paid more than they are. The Government contracts providers to provide the service. We can talk about the matter until the cows come home, but significant investment will be required to improve the quality of care provided to benefit children.

I refer to an excellent suggestion made in recent weeks about having an early years education national week, a national campaign to be led by the Department and the Department of Education and Skills, to illustrate the importance of early years education. It would not just be of benefit to children but would also benefit us all if we had a good quality early years child care and education system.