Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Senator Barrett. It is important to state for the record that the Department has, via a tender won by the National Centre for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching and Learning, NCE-MSTL, out of the University of Limerick and NUIG, spent more than ¤2 million in the past year through a professional diploma, which is being delivered as we speak, for out-of-field maths teachers. There is a clear recognition by the Department of the need to ensure that we have a coterie of teachers who are properly skilled in STEM.

I refer briefly to the recent TIMMS and PIRLS results, which mapped out literacy, numeracy and scientific skills among a fourth class coterie at primary school level. Those results clearly show that in the area of literacy we are doing very well and that we are above average in the areas of mathematics and science, but my vision is that we could do much better. My personal vision is that I would like to see the teacher education colleges - which are going through a restructuring process, which is ongoing at higher education level - devise programmes with master's in STEM education or STEM advocates which could be created at primary school level, perhaps at district level. We could engage, for instance, the people who roll out SciFest. I take the point that was made that there is an annual pilgrimage to the RDS and the Young Scientist Exhibition has done marvellous work in raising the people's consciousness about science but there are other players in that field such as SciFest. This is where industry has a role to play in raising awareness and consciousness around the need to ensure we have advocates for science at primary level. We need to start thinking of more long-term objectives as well, instead of the five-year electoral cycles. My vision is that we move into five-year, ten-year and 15-year horizons. If we start to look at primary school now in terms of the way STEM education is taught, we will see the long-term results of that in due course. We are conscious of this but for the purposes of this amendment, technically speaking, this is in the area of education and would be done through the higher education strategy, which is a function of the Department of Education and Skills. It is in that context, although I agree with the sentiments expressed, that I would not be in a position to accept the amendment.

I state for the purposes of the record that SFI's objective is as set out in the legislation, to promote and assist the development and competitiveness of industry, enterprise and employment in the State. It is funded by the State through the Department's Vote. The power of the Minister to issue directions is for the purpose of specifying particular actions related to the carrying out by SFI of its function in line with these objectives and to ensure that public funding is used in accordance with these objectives. Allowing external bodies to influence these policy directions would not be appropriate. I agree with the sentiments of the amendment but for the purposes of this legislation and in terms of changing or evolving the remit of SFI, I would not be in a position to accept it.