Seanad debates

Wednesday, 13 April 2005

Special Educational Needs: Motion.

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Joe O'TooleJoe O'Toole (Independent)

The best I can say about the motion is that in using the phrase "committed to reducing further" in the last paragraph somebody avoided the possibility of splitting an infinitive. How will the 300 additional posts across the education system be provided? I dare not ask, but I presume the provision of perhaps 150 posts at primary level will be to address educational disadvantage only. As it is not clear from the motion, I would like to know exactly what the 300 additional posts will achieve.

I listened to the Minister speak at the INTO conference earlier this month at which she was very well received. I took special note of her comments which I welcomed genuinely. Her comments on class size were especially welcome. She said that while she acknowledged the issue of class size was one on which more work had to be done and the average pupil-teacher ratio had been brought down to 24:1, she remained committed to delivering further reductions in class sizes in line with Government policy.

The Minister also made another reference to that issue. What concerns me is that there is no mention of a 20:1 ratio. I would like confirmation from the Minister that the objective on class size is still 20:1, as stated in the programme for Government, and that this will be delivered. I am a reasonable person. I have listened to the INTO general secretary, John Carr, speak on this matter on several occasions. He is also a reasonable person. What people want to hear is how the objective on class size will be achieved and in what timescale. It is not an unreasonable demand.

The Minister also referred to the number of untrained personnel in classrooms. Will something be done about that issue this year? The Minister said she would write to every primary school board of management. Everybody in this Chamber would support her in ensuring that qualified teachers who are seeking work would get jobs rather than untrained personnel. It would be helpful if that letter were sent out now so that people could begin to address the issue. That letter could be sent out in the morning. Why can it not be done immediately?

Estimates suggest that between 400 and 700 jobs would be created next year as part of the campaign to reduce class sizes. Will the Government make these jobs available? By how much will we reduce class sizes? It is even more worrying that the Minister stated that in the next school year there would be smaller classes for children in disadvantaged schools. That is a definite commitment.

The Minister has been a teacher and she knows what it is like to be in a classroom and to plan ahead. People in schools are trying to work out where they will be next September, how many teachers they will have, where they will put classes and who will be in charge. Schools need to know about that now. The Minister made a fair point but it is not unreasonable to ask that people would be informed.

I know there is a smart answer to this issue. The Minister could say that even if principals were told on the last day of June or August that they would welcome an additional teacher whenever they got one. That is the truth but that is not the way we want to plan for our schools, do our business or make appointments. I ask that the Minister would deal with this matter.

I do not think anybody can argue reasonably with the Minister's statement that she is giving priority to special education and educational disadvantage at various levels. People can argue against it but it is a valid position for a Minister to take. There are four issues to be taken into account in this regard. The first relates to the loss of special needs assistants, SNAs, and how schools will cope. Another issue relates to what we will do for the disadvantaged in the next school year. There is also the question of what we will do to reduce the average class size to 20:1 over the next two or three years, beginning this year. The last matter is what we do in regard to special education. It is not unreasonable at this stage to ask the Minister what exactly will happen and what she will do.

One of the things I find most alarming in terms of special education — speakers have commented eloquently on it — is the fact that in the UK a child with an IQ between 50 and 70 is defined as moderately disabled whereas here such a child is considered to be mildly disabled and, therefore, is not provided with any support. That is appalling. There is no point in trying to reach international standards in that respect. I accept this was the case before the Minister was appointed to this office. That situation is not fair nor acceptable and we must look carefully at this matter.

I intend to propose a debate on the area of special education. There is too much in the subject to deal with tonight. I want to keep the focus in this debate on teacher numbers. I would like the Minister to state what she will do. I will give a commitment to the Minister. If she informs me she will reduce class sizes to 20:1 on a phased basis, I will support that and I will argue with teachers in support of such a measure. The leadership of the INTO, and John Carr in particular, would certainly wish to hear how that would be done. While I might not be happy with the speed with which it will be implemented I would support a plan that aims to deliver on class sizes. That is not unreasonable.

If schools that will lose SNAs or teachers this year see what will happen in the next two years they would put up with it. When there is an expectation of certainty somewhere down the line it is easy to deal with people, but when a matter is clouded in obfuscation, as Senator Finucane stated, that creates uncertainty, scepticism and problems for everybody. Let us put a plan in place that will address the problem which people can buy into. That is not an unreasonable approach. Let us do it within resources.

I appeal to the Minister to do a Khrushchev on it and hammer the Cabinet table and read back to the Government what is stated in its programme for Government.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.