Shane Ross (Independent)

I second the motion and I thank Senator O'Toole for tabling it. In support of what he said, there is plenty of precedent for the Government accepting motions encompassing amendments and passing them without of vote. I see nothing to quarrel with in what the Government has to say and given the aspirational nature of our motion, the Government should not have any problem with it. It would be welcome if the Minister took it on board and if we could act in a spirit of unanimity and not divide the House.

I welcome this motion which I read with a certain amount of scepticism. My scepticism was relieved quickly because it is the first motion on education for many years which puts the pupil first. Indeed, of the eight points in the motion, seven put the pupil first and only one puts the teacher first. That is somewhat of a reversal of the priorities we have tended to hear from Members of the Oireachtas and vested interests, which we should welcome. It means many people are beginning to recognise that in the past, teachers had a position which was particularly strong and that pupils were subjected to a lower place in the pecking order of education.

I welcome those points Senator O'Toole made in favour of the pupil, particularly the one on the pupil-teacher ratio which will involve the employment of more teachers but which will also benefit the pupil. I welcome this motion if it helps to put the pupil back at the centre of Irish education because the high profile was taken by the teacher for so long that one would have thought education was for teachers and not for pupils.

It is fair to acknowledge that in the common parlance, there is another stakeholder involved, namely parents. The Minister has by her actions acknowledged them as well, which I welcome. Of course the position, pay and conditions of teachers is vital but let us now say it is the pupils who really matter and that education is for them. That is why I also welcome the particular emphasis Senator O'Toole has placed on special needs education. This House and its Leader have taken several initiatives on the issue of autistic children and we have brought it to the front of the political arena. We have successfully debated this issue and Senator O'Toole was right when he said the requirements of special needs children should be paramount and that funding for them should be a priority.

The days when the ASTI was striking did much damage to the cause, profile and reputation of teachers. This is, to some extent, an acknowledgement that in those days, they regarded their own selfish interests as far more important than those of their pupils. Indeed, they engaged in strike action in circumstances which were deplorable in the light of the interests of pupils and the examinations taking place at the time. The softer and more caring approach of the INTO will pay off, not only for the pupils but for the teachers because public opinion has moved again to acknowledge the great work teachers do, which tended to be forgotten at the time the strikes were taking place when public opinion reacted against teachers.

I refer to teachers' pay which is mentioned in the second last point in the motion. It states that teachers should be adequately and fairly rewarded for the challenging and responsible work they undertake and it demands, in particular, that the anomaly to which Senator O'Toole referred should be addressed. Teachers' pay is always a difficult subject and it is one which will be addressed both outside and inside the next partnership talks. I wish to mention benchmarking in that regard. I have no problem with public servants, in particular teachers, being well rewarded for what they do. However, I have a problem with a benchmarking deal which sets performance targets that are bogus and with a future deal which sets similar performance targets that are not adhered to or met.

I have a problem with the establishment of performance verification groups which then pass, almost without question, all those performance targets whose novelty is in extreme doubt or which will certainly not be policed or implemented. While teachers should be well paid, their performance should be monitored. We should be able to state with confidence, conviction, honesty and integrity that such performance indicators have actually been achieved.

Members are aware that after the last partnership talks, teachers in particular had real difficulties regarding their particular performance targets and in meeting some of the timetables involved. It will not be right to exercise this kind of muscle in the future. Targets should be clear and transparent and teachers should be suitably rewarded for the work they have done.

This should not be expressed in terms of league tables, which are absolutely invidious and should be completely excluded from our educational platform or agenda. They pressurise teachers to perform like automata or robots and to deliver pupils in a certain state, which is only measured by examination results. This is the antithesis of education. We should ensure that while we avoid such league tables, we develop other performance targets which ensure that teachers can meet them, will compete to meet them and will deliver well-rounded pupils who are not simply judged on examination points.

It is fair to pay teachers well, if the job is seen to be done effectively and efficiently and they should be judged fairly and independently. However, they should not be paid, willy-nilly, certain amounts from the partnership pot——