Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the report in so far as it gives us an opportunity to discuss the matter. It has strengths and weaknesses and the Minister has acknowledged the latter, but why should we throw out the dirty water until we have the clean inside? We should examine what we have and determine how to improve the system. If we must, let us criticise the report, but let us not throw it out. Everything written should be analysed and revised. This report is concerned with determining the degree to which we can review teaching practices in colleges and has some positive aspects.

Recently, I received a telephone call from a young teacher who had just concluded her training at Mary Immaculate College. During her teacher practice, she had a bad experience with her inspector in that her assessment was not good. Consequently, she only passed and did not get an honours degree, which will have an impact on her salary. However, in St. Patrick's College in Drumcondra, one is not required to get an honour in one's teaching practise to get an honours degree. If one gets an honours degree, one will be paid a higher salary.

Something is not right in Mary Immaculate College's procedure. I would have thought that all teacher training colleges would have the same standards and criteria for work experience assessments. I do not know enough details, but why are there different standards in the two training colleges? While I did not read through the report in detail, I looked through it to find an answer to my question. The situation is unfair to the Mary Immaculate College student. Will I be given a reply on this matter?

The system has changed, but the teacher colleges have not taken single grade classes, Irish medium schools and children with disabilities into account. Schools are facing increasing levels of complexity in terms of different ethnic and social backgrounds and the new school curriculum. I searched for this topic in the report, but I found no answer as to whether the colleges cater for the issue. Is this fair on a young teacher who goes into a classroom without knowing the structure of the school, the principal or the class teacher or without enough understanding of the school's environment, namely, is it urban or rural?

Would it not be better to lengthen the probationary period? Once teachers receive their final qualifications, they should be assessed during the ensuing probationary year. Is this not the fourth year in question, namely, three years in college followed by a probationary year? I do not know enough about the matter, but I listened to the debate. The Minister is against increasing the duration to four years whereas some speakers were for the measure, but am I missing the point? It was not raised in the report but perhaps we should examine it.

How do colleges organise the school network? Is there a structure? I did not get a feel for this matter in the report, but it seems haphazard. I would like a more formal structure wherein St. Patrick's College, for example, would have a network of schools so that the new teacher would have time to familiarise himself or herself with the class teacher, the school's structure, the students' backgrounds, the parents and so on. Given that it would help teaching, the network would be important. Apart from the learning process and connecting with the class, there is more to teaching than going into classrooms, using computers and so on. It receives greater holistic consideration than it did 20 years ago.

I welcome the report and the changes that must be introduced. There are many weaknesses, but I congratulate the Minister for moving the matter forward. It is a step in the right direction.