Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)

In other words, the assessor was given an impression of the student's competence prior to the conduct of the assessment. That was prejudicial to any qualitative evaluation of the student. This is a regrettable departure from the established and respected norms of assessment and scientific research. If I am incorrect, I would like the Minister to outline why. This is almost akin to giving the jury the full book of evidence before the trial begins. I am drawing this to the Minister's attention because I would like it to be addressed. The methodology used is questionable and if I am correct, what is the status of the findings?

I refer to the objectivity of the assessments. The Minister has been committed to objectivity throughout her different careers. Apart from the impact of prior evaluation marks being known to the assessor, the process employed also seems to be suspect. The evaluation schedules set out in appendix 1 to the report outline 43 elements of the evaluation process. Marking is provided for on a graduated scale ranging from excellent to NE, which means no evidence of any component skill. The report provides no evidence of agreed performance indicators to guide assessment grading. There is also no evidence that any student had the benefit of a second opinion nor of cross-checking or cross-moderation to ensure the norms expected of each of the nine inspectors were common across the range of assessors. That should have been a basic standard. Were some of the assessments rushed and cursory?

Lines 1 and 2 on page 8 of the report state: "It was recognised that there were constraints on the inspectors with regard to the location and the time available for carrying out the school visits." I must consider this in the context of my former career as a teacher. Each inspector assessed three students per day. Given that the school day for each student for the purpose of the assessment was supposed to be five hours and travel between schools must be taken into account, it is unlikely that any student had more than an hour to be assessed on 43 criteria. Perhaps I have totally misinterpreted this, but if not I would be concerned. If I have misinterpreted this, I would like to know in what way.

I am seriously concerned about the adequacy of the assessment under these conditions. It seems clear it was not adequate. Apart from what seems to be the rushed nature of it in certain cases, it obviously did not focus on issues such as the socio-economic context, which is extremely important, the cultural norms of the children being taught — God knows we have dealt with that issue in various projects on the north side of this city in which INTO teachers and sociologists have been involved — and the discipline issues in the classroom.

The Minister outlined the recommendations, which are sensible, encouraging and positive. However, I could not find a challenging recommendation. It is very important that we improve students' understanding of the sociological considerations which cause some children to be highly motivated and easy to teach — I will not mention places of which I can think, as can other Members — while others are demotivated, resentful of authority and challenging to teachers. There is an absence in that regard and that is a fundamental weakness.

There is also merit in reviewing whether a student teacher should serve an apprenticeship under the guidance of a high quality practitioner. That is my tuppence ha'pennyworth. I am greatly encouraged by the many initiatives in regard to the first year of teaching. They are commendable and positive and I very much support what the Minister said.

There is no doubt the report reveals the startling finding that a minority of teachers show a serious lack of competence. However, the finding is based on that questionable process. I would be less than honest if I did not say that. Along with her many other qualities, the Minister is a very discerning and objective person and I am sure she will treat this report as providing prima facie evidence that not all is well. As distinct from Senator Ulick Burke, I would encourage the Minister towards a more thorough and comprehensive evaluation of teacher training.

I commend the Minister on the many positive, encouraging and holistic initiatives she has brought to bear on education not only at second and third level, which have been extremely impressive, but also at primary level. The vision she has shown and the depth of understanding she has of what teaching and partnership in education are about are very commendable. I commend her on a whole catalogue of initiatives which I do not have time to mention. However, I am not happy with this report. I would like clarification of the concerns I have raised.