Sheila Nunan, General Secretary
Irish National Teachers’ Organisation
In response to Minister for Education and
Skills Richard Bruton
18 April 2017
Good morning colleagues, good morning minister and good morning secretary
general.
I have to warn you that we were in the unfortunate position last year of not
having the minister from the North or the South in a position to attend our
conference – so I have two years pent up, you’ll just have to strap yourself in.
You referred to your 11-month tenure, and I think possibly when you were being
briefed by your officials initially in Marlborough Street, one of the lucky hands
that you were dealt was that you were very fortunate in having in the profession
the highest quality teachers in the world, and I think, as a minister, that does
make your role from the get-go.
But it didn’t happen overnight, Minister, as generation after generation of INTO
fought to raise the standard from monitors to junior assistant mistresses to
national school teachers to the B. Ed and the Post Masters in Education. It took
sustained effort to achieve the professional status and recognition that we now
have. It is not just nationally, but is an internationally recognised fact, and it has
not gone unnoticed around the globe. Several countries are actively seeking the
talents of Irish primary teachers and principals with packages designed to fill the
gaps in their pay packets here. While we don’t suffer the shocking attrition rate
that was set out very clearly by Dr Mary Bousted yesterday, as a direct result of
the toxic combination of low pay and excessive workload, we ask you at the
outset, Minister, not to take the quality of our teaching work force for granted.
We need to learn from that pattern and the Government needs to learn not to
make the same mistake. And so what I intend to do over the next period is to
take up the ambitions that you have set out – but I really want to look under the
bonnet and see where the petrol is to keep the engine going – and I make no
apology, Minister, for saying that pay is the unifying theme of teachers North and
South and we are very clear in our demands.
Teachers’ Pay
There is an empty seat here this year because of the political situation in
Northern Ireland and we don’t have a devolved government or a minister for
education that I can offload on behalf of my colleagues in Northern Ireland but,
for the record, our colleagues in the North in 2015 and 2016 have had the
insulting experience of having a zero per cent freeze on their pay, with the added
insult of 1% imposed in this school year, and no recognition of the previous
years. Yesterday we said, and we confirmed this morning, that our members in
Northern Ireland are resolute in their determination to seek a just and fair pay
award.
A good start for our colleagues in the Republic is the 2017 pay negotiations on
the successor to the Lansdowne Road Agreement. When the Minister was telling
us, in fairness recognising the quality of his workforce, I was thinking ‘I should
have sent him in to the pay commission’, that might have been a more clever
route than going in myself. You might have made a more compelling case about
your marvellous workforce. But the opportunity is now going to arise very
shortly to repair the damage to salaries over the last number of years. We’re
determined to seize it and we hope government will seize it too.
Already, the predictable opponents of public sector pay are lining the opinion
columns and opining on the airwaves that we can’t deal with public sector pay.
We are determined that the next round of pay talks removes the minuses from
our pay checks. This fortnightly reminder of the socialised debt carried by
teachers and other public servants does nothing to enhance morale or, more
importantly, doesn’t pay bills.
Our stall is set out clearly in our submission to the Pay Commission and I’m
delighted that you had an opportunity to study it. We do want an end to the
FEMPI cuts, we do want fair pay for our teachers. The bringing forward of the
€1,000, while helpful, has to be followed by a meaningful schedule of the
removal of the shackles of FEMPI. We get very pleased when we hear your
cabinet colleague, the Minister for Finance, talking up the growth in the economy
and, while he hasn’t formally announced the emergency is over, we see it as a
good green light. But, Minister Donoghue has been very carefully running out
afterwards pouring cold water, dampening down expectations. Joking aside,
colleagues, the very serious point is we’ve done our time, we’ve played our part,
we’ve kept the show on the road. It’s pay back time.
Minister, in your address you acknowledged the issue of pay equality which, of
course, is top priority for the INTO. I will acknowledge that, following your
appointment, we met with you last July, we asked for your support on the new
entrant pay issue. In fairness, you did initiate support and on-going engagement
between your officials and the INTO throughout the summer months and, in
their absence, I would like to acknowledge Kevin McCarthy, Philip Crosby and
Tara Carton, whom we detained for lengthy hours, day and night, over the course
of the summer in search of a solution. The resulting September agreement has
moved things in the right direction and we will acknowledge that you were
supportive of that. But I am glad today, that you recognise what you did in
writing in that agreement, that the issue of pay for 2011 entrants to the public
service was not resolved in the current process. And again this morning, we’re
asking you to ensure the words that you’ve spoken earlier and this unfinished
business is completed. Our submission to the Commission is very clear, the
incremental scale is simply too long at 27 points, it is a long and weary climb.
This is the future asset for the primary education system to deliver far reaching
targets and ambitions that you have set out, you need to mind it.
Íoch na múinteorí nó imeoidh said – and that’s not an empty threat.
That’s something you need to pay attention to. Surprisingly, I was showing
somebody yesterday that the INTO received received an email from a
recruitment company in Hong Kong to see if they could meet us and if we could
facilitate the recruitment of teachers in Hong Kong. Of course, in terms of career
break, it’s encouraging for people to travel, but, I can tell you, if I told any
principal teachers here that I was facilitating their further exit, they would be
like Donald Trump, they would say ‘build a wall, keep them in’. The final point,
Minister, in relation to pay, the third part, is about outstanding business. The
long overdue payment of the Benchmarking Award to our principal teachers to
give them recognition. The case was made in 2007, recognised and awarded in
2008, and remains frozen on the books since then. And this, coupled with
progressively higher pay cuts imposed during the recession on principals, the
accrual of responsibility as middle management vanished, and the seemingly
endless demands, is bending that sector to breaking point and I will come back
further to that in a minute.
So that’s the holy trinity of our pay case – and that’s our all-Ireland plea – fair pay
for teachers.
Minster, in relation to the ambitions that you have set out I want to deconstruct
some of those.
Posts of Responsibility
In relation to middle management – I was encouraged to hear you say it’s a tus
maith in relation to the allocation in the last budget. But we do need to see your
ambition and you time-lining in terms of what needs to be achieved. Because, in
2009, there were more than 1,500 assistant principal posts in primary schools.
Today there are less than 700. In 2009 there were nearly 8,300 special duties
posts in primary schools. Today there are less than 5000. All told more than
4,000 promoted posts have been stripped out of the primary school system.
That’s a loss to 4,000 teachers in terms of their career progression, not to speak
of career earnings. It’s a loss to about three quarters of all primary schools in the
country in terms of work that cannot be done. It’s a loss to very many principals
– many of whom pick up the leadership roles and the responsibilities left unfilled
by the embargo on promotion. It’s a loss to children in terms of work that is left
undone.
It cannot continue.
A start has been made in terms of restoration and we will have on-going
discussions with officials in your department – hopefully immediately after this
Congress – in respect of last year’s budgetary allocation. We need an acceleration
of this restoration if we are to reach any of this ambition that you have set out.
Schools need assistant principal posts to take responsibility and leadership in
special education. They need promoted posts to lead the development of schools’
ICT. They need the post-holders for the development of a curriculum and
innovation in schools.
But here’s the rub this morning, the announcement of change and innovation
without reference to resources, is unacceptable. All change must specify the who,
the when, the where, the how as well as the why. And more importantly the “how
much!”
In terms of promotion, we have to tell you Minister, that we want an end to top
slicing resources and funding to favour second-level schools. The INTO will not
tolerate any form of second class resourcing or funding and we will watch very
closely that this other inequality will be repaired in the course over the next
budget.
Funding
On the issue of funding, Minister, funding underpins everything we do in our
schools. There is one reason and one reason only for voluntary contributions
and school fundraising activities in primary schools and that’s government
under-funding. Less than one euro per pupil per day for running costs. If schools
were properly funded by the state then teachers wouldn’t have to engage in
fundraising like voluntary subscriptions, charity walks, readathons, race nights,
golf classics, social outings for parents, raffles, cake sales, sales of work, guess the
score in sporting competitions, book sales, school lotto, Christmas Concert, on
and on…
The day-to-day running costs of the country’s primary schools far exceed the
funding provided by the state. Government goes nowhere near meeting the real
costs of running schools such as heating, lighting, electricity, cleaning, insurance,
office expenses, classroom equipment. There are teachers here this week
working in schools where the last fill of oil was bought on credit from a local
supplier. There are teachers here this week working in schools where payment
to creditors has to be put off, waiting for money to come into the bank.
The system is being subsidised by the efforts of parents and teachers. Parents
are effectively paying a local education tax. This is unacceptable. The running
costs should be fully met by the Department.
Parents pay taxes to fund education. They should not have to pay at the double.
Education is not a charity and it is time that it is properly funded.
Teachers resent having to ask parents for a voluntary contribution. Many
parents resent having to pay it but they are obviously willing to help their
children’s education. I think that politicians know that parents resent putting
their hands in their pockets and that’s why there’s a smokescreen around
publishing accounts. Schools will be happy to do this, and send them registered
post to Marlborough Street when the money runs out. We’ll see then what the
response will be.
ICT
Minister, you referred to the information technology age that we live in and I
suppose that there’s a sense that we live in a parallel world when we have this
conversation so we need to look at the funding in relation to ICT.
Earlier this year your department rolled out a little funding for ICT, made up of a
block grant and a per capita payment. The problem is that the per capita
payment was €22.20 per pupil in primary – €31.90 per pupil at second-level.
Are second-level computers more expensive? I can see how broadband might be
– considering second-level schools have broadband and primary schools don’t.
Do bigger children need bigger machines? Do they cost more? Because I just
don’t have an explanation for it. You talk about transformative education but we
have to stop pretending that we can support the potential of digital technologies
to transform the learning experiences on this level of funding.
And on the subject of IT, why will primary schools have to wait four years for
your department to publish a strategy and plan for IT use in primary schools. We
don’t like the mushroom treatment.
Charter of Teachers’ Rights
Minister, I now want to talk a little bit about the legislation that we have had an
opportunity to respond to in relation to parents and charters for children and the
establishment of an ombudsman for children. Continuity is a good thing, but this
first raised its head during the tenure of Minister Quinn. We had hoped that it
might have also gone with Minister Quinn. However, we notice that, in terms of a
charter for parent’s rights, I think it really is important that, as a trade union in
the 21st century, that teachers are entitled to a charter of teachers’ rights. We
have to mind our teachers. You spoke about wellbeing; it’s no good lining up a
rights environment for everybody else and the teachers trying to deal with it.
The right to regular work in Ireland.
The right to fair and equal pay.
The right to teach in a safe disruption free environment.
The right to adequate resources to do the job.
The right to a decent welfare service.
The right to support services for pupils’ needs.
The right to a career structure with equal and fair opportunities for promotion.
The right to a decent pension.
The right to professional development
The right to support from the Department of Education.
The right to trade union representation
The right to a private life and to hold one’s own religious, moral and ethical
beliefs.
These are a few of the things that could go into it.
Schools’ Admissions Process
You were right minister in recognising that we have a long track record in the
schools admissions process. We have a solidly held position in favour of
promoting inclusivity in primary schools, including supporting a variety of
measures to achieve this. Our primary schools have led in this area. We first
proposed the establishment of a forum on pluralism and patronage. Our
submission on that highlighted the length to which teachers, particularly
principals, have gone to provide a school place for every child to be inclusive and
to work to the limits of existing regulations.
We have long argued for common enrolment procedures. We have strongly
argued the need to examine the provisions of the Equal Status Act, particularly
that which allows schools to discriminate on religious grounds. We have been
crystal clear that this provision needs to be deleted from legislation.
Section 7(3)(c ) runs completely counter to the objective of promoting inclusion
for children of diverse beliefs and none. Continuing to allow denominational
schools to prefer pupils of their own denomination or to retain the right to refuse
children not of the school’s denomination is discriminatory, plain and simple. It
unnecessarily perpetuates differences in the treatment of children on the basis of
their beliefs and is unacceptable to the INTO.
DEIS
I think we share with you, Minister, the need for investment for inclusion in
disadvantaged areas. There are aspects of the new Action Plan on DEIS to be
welcomed. The commitment to school-based speech and language therapists,
something demanded by the INTO 20 years ago, is a potential step forward.
Measures to prevent hunger are also welcome although I question how
extending the School Meals programme to non-DEIS schools at this stage fits in
with tackling disadvantage. Surely there’s a need to invest in DEIS school
infrastructure such as kitchens first?
Our overall issue again comes back to resourcing. It can appear on first reading
that the language appears very positive. The issue we have is that schools need
clarity regarding the how and the when of the commitments.
The class size commitments are a major point of concern. From a 15:1 maximum
class size the most disadvantaged schools now go to a staffing schedule of 20:1.
Disadvantaged schools did not benefit from Budget 2017. It is also not clear if
DEIS schools will lose teachers and other resources if they attract a broader mix
of pupils. And I think, Minister, one of the things that drives any school and
principals and teachers I meet in relation to the paradox that social inclusion
puts upon them – you do well, you lose the resources.
The reality is that to get resources, pupils’ levels of need will have to be high but
if a school improves they’re worried that they’re going to see a cut in that. If this
turns out to be the case, then we must consider whether it is fair that those
schools continue to receive, and this is a quote from your own DEIS policy: This
appears to signal cuts to a notable number of DEIS schools based on application
of the new tool.
This shifting of resources is a highly questionable notion of fairness. Taking from
the poor to give to the poorer is a blatantly unfair policy and undermines what
DEIS is supposed to do in the first place.
If educational attainment is to be raised to the level of the rest of the population,
then I have one simple message – no cuts to teachers and other resources for the
current schools in DEIS. We won’t accept a passing around of existing resources.
And if we want those students, that you so rightly argue should take their place
amongst the teaching profession, we need to ensure that those students from the
very outset get the best quality investment when they’re in primary school to
boost their confidence. This is not a zero sum game.
We have serious concerns about the vague financial commitments in the plan.
More clarity is needed over the funding of the scheme. We are tackling the
highest increase in child poverty in Europe between 2008 and 2011 needs a real
investment of cash and cannot be done by moving the pennies from one DEIS
school to another.
There is a need to reduce not increase staff turnover. DEIS schools already have
the highest turnover of staff because people get burnt out by fatigue and
disenchantment. The plan is high on metrics for measuring pupils, and by
extension their teachers, but there is no commitment to teacher support.
Teacher and principal workload
And now, Minister, I just want to focus for a while on something that I’m sure
you’ve heard in every school that you have visited and it is a common theme at
every teacher conference. Teacher and principal teacher workload.
Teacher workload has increased out of all proportion in recent years. It is caused
by excessive paperwork, the non-stop demands of the system, filling forms and
increasing administration. Minister, your action plan is obviously close to your
heart – you have a democratic mandate from the people, you are an elected
minister – it’s in every speech and press release. But I have to refer back to your
opening remarks about the history of the INTO. We’ve been around a long time,
we intend to be around a long time. And, since we last met in Belfast in 1996,
there have been ten people in your job as minister for education and they all like
to come with their own action plan. We can get a plan every two years that
transfers work to teachers in schools, broadening their responsibility,
heightening their accountability and raising their temperatures. They go from
inspiration to frustration and sometimes resignation. It’s something we have to
pay attention to.
Teachers go into teaching to teach.
Today my colleagues are expected to teach their classes and prove that they did
it. They must analyse and assess progress, keep parents informed of every detail,
confer and plan with teaching colleagues, write it all down in exhaustive detail in
case your inspectors decide to drop in, investigate parental complaints against
other pupils, deal with aggressors, comfort the victims and, in extreme cases,
nurture, feed and nurse pupils, taking on the role of surrogate parent.
It’s time to rescue teachers from this. Primary teachers are not work shy but
work that is meaningless, and little more than box ticking an action plan, is
frustrating, erodes morale and saps energy.
That is where the leverage for dealing with stress and wellbeing in teachers
begins and ends, it’s in managing the workload and anything that gets in the way
of that, like measuring energy use in schools, costing uniforms and even
providing a book rental scheme needs to be examined. And if it’s absolutely
necessary to be done then where are the resources to do it? If teacher workload
is bad then principals’ workload is worse. Is it any wonder that fewer and fewer
qualified people want the principal’s job? Expectations for the role of principal
have steadily expanded, always adding to, but never subtracting. The list of
duties involve the most mundane yet consequential demands of everyday life in
the school, minor, short-term demands and commitments that snuff out capacity
to create a vision for the school and manage the whole enterprise.
When you ask principal teachers how they are getting on with the teaching and
learning they can often look askance and say if I had time to do that it would be a
great thing.
Principals, in the main, must manage the detail of special education and schools
IT and search for substitute teachers. Those should be duties of a promoted
teacher in any rational organisational structure but in primary education we
have a new breed – the super principal. Meanwhile our super principal looks
longingly across the road to the lovely post-primary school and sees an
administrative deputy principal in all of their schools to boost their
organisational structure.
It’s neither reasonable nor intelligent to assume that every principal can do it all.
No one can live up to every expectation and be all things to all people. We need
system wide support for principals. If your action plan doesn’t build on this then
it is doomed to failure. It needs to radically increase release time for teaching
principals restore lost posts of responsibility and pay our benchmarking.
Conclusion
To conclude, minister, your action plan, as I said, is ambition, but ambition
without action and resources is a fantasy. We need to know that your ambition
will be matched with the resources to allow our people to do what they want to
do. They are tenacious guardians of the pupils they teach. They are of the people
and they are for the people. They have, and always will, in the past and into the
future, do their best by their primary school students. The results are there to
prove it. We need you, Minister, to guard the asset that you have, that I spoke
about, and to make sure that you will fight harder than all of your cabinet
colleagues because every penny invested in education, as you said yourself, is the
best money spent in this country.