Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

This discussion is part of that on the reform of education. However, there are much more significant issues than those encompassed by this Bill, including those associated with the need to have patronage examined, the concept of secularisation in education and overall educational standards. That said, none of the discussions should be divorced from the overall question of resources and investment in education. To talk about reform in the context of a butchering of funding and inadequate funding really results in a lopsided debate. If anything, we need more investment in education, particularly in these pressing times for the economy. Investment would ultimately pay off and be beneficial not just to individuals, but also to society as a whole.

This Bill mainly deals with redeployment and standards. With regard to redeployment, there are not many objections from the trade unions, presumably because many of the measures have been agreed under the Croke Park agreement. The change in circumstances, whereby the Minister must engage in consultation as opposed to having the agreement of the partners, is fine because much of the detailed decision-making ultimately rests with the board and principal of a school. That is absolutely appropriate.

Let me deal with two issues in particular, the first of which is the abolition of the Educational Disadvantage Committee and the second of which concerns the Teaching Council. On the first, the committee has not really been active since 2005. The Government has argued that its role has largely been taken on by those administering the DEIS programme. The Irish Federation of University Teachers raised some concerns about that, arguing the arrangement may continue to fuel disadvantage in education. The retort of the Department, referring to ongoing work on combating disadvantage, must be questioned seriously. We cannot look at this measure in isolation, particularly given the recent attacks on DEIS schools, which the intervention of parents and teachers has altered. We must also look at it from the perspective of funding. Some 3% of the student body at County Dublin VEC have been told they will shoulder 10% of the education cuts. It is precisely due to the cuts in programmes targeted at disadvantaged young people that they will have to pay that price.

In order to have a massive leap forward in educational standards and retain young people in education, funding is needed for programmes with smaller classes such as the applied leaving certificate, other junior certificate programmes and schemes allowing Traveller children to participate, as well as the provision of special needs assistants or SNAs. Schools will have to cut these things, however, so we should re-examine this matter. The question of dealing with disadvantage must be placed in the larger context of what is happening to SNAs. I understand that the Minister is even talking about removing parents' right of appeal in that regard, which would be absolutely disastrous. When the Government talks about combating disadvantage and the abolition of VECs being a part of that overall battle, the argument is weakened by attacks on the most disadvantaged young people, including students.

The role of the Teaching Council has been highlighted in this debate. The Bill's explanatory memorandum outlines a list of the council's functions and what it is supposed to do. While I do not wish to be disrespectful, most people would see it as a glorified organisation for vetting teachers by the Garda Síochána. Some would question the need for that organisation to exist as an independent body. We need to look at its role and what purpose it serves. In that context, the Bill is a lost opportunity in that it does not really go far enough. One of the key questions concerns why unemployed and part-time teachers have to fund this body. The reality in this State is that it is not possible to get a job as a teacher unless one is registered. The fact that it costs €90 per year, particularly if a person is unemployed, is outrageous. The fact that over 3,000 people did not re-register last year tells a certain tale. The figures speak for themselves.

The registration fee places an economic burden on people, which is totally unnecessary. Why are we talking about an annual registration fee? Why is it not every three or five years? If it is necessary to register every year, why is there an annual charge? It seems that the only purpose of this registration is as a revenue generating mechanism. No other explanation makes any great sense. The only reason I have heard being advanced is that "We need to make it self-financing and get funding for it". Why should the cost of that self-financing be borne by the teachers themselves, particularly those who are unemployed or part-time, when the employer gains from their professionalism? The Department of Education and Skills, as the employer, should be funding this service, rather than individual teachers. If the Department should be funding it, this begs the question as to why the Department cannot do the work itself within its own departmental buildings. Why do we need a separate premises in Maynooth? What are the salaries of the top people in the Teaching Council? We should dig deep on these issues and examine them. If we are talking about streamlining and, as the Bill states, it is part of an overall cost-saving package, why do we not examine that aspect also?

In addition, letters sent out by the Teaching Council to its members use full-colour, heavy, embossed, expensive paper. It is quite incredible. While I do not know for a fact, I am told that it is of a graphic design character that is-----

See this speech in context