Political party manifestos lack ambition to tackle teacher supply crisis

Political party manifestos are curious documents. Ostensibly, they aim to provide choices to citizens and a means of making comparisons between the various political party offerings. The reality is that they vary significantly in the information they provide, and are often a measure of a party’s available resources and sometimes their expertise. Some provide details of the cost of their proposals, others do not. Very often the figures quoted will be disputed. Despite their shortcomings, they provide a reasonable idea of the thinking within political parties on various topics and to that extent they are useful.
To provide a comprehensive account of the various party documents (particularly those from the larger parties) is not the aim of this article. Rather, we offer an analysis of the stances taken by various groups on two of the most pressing issues affecting the education system: teacher supply and educational disadvantage.
Both are complex and intractable issues which have been affecting the education system for some time and both have been identified by international bodies, including the OECD and the EU, as in need of urgent attention. The two issues intersect as, during a teacher supply crisis schools serving disadvantaged areas suffer the greatest impact.
An issue we have written about at length over the past five years, including in these columns, there has been a growing teacher supply crisis hitting both primary and post-primary schools for about 12 years now.
In addition, there has been a more long-standing problem at post-primary level, whereby principals find themselves having to assign out-of-field teachers to teach particular subjects. Out-of-field teaching is the practice of assigning teachers to positions for which they do not have suitable qualifications.
This practice was identified as a “constraint on true professionalism” in an OECD review of Irish education published in 1991, and acknowledged as an issue in the 1992 Green Paper, Education for a Changing World: “While, ideally, teachers should teach only their final degree subjects, it is not considered practicable to introduce such a requirement at this stage.”
Unfortunately, more than 30 years later, out-of-field teaching is still a widespread problem, exacerbated in recent years by the supply crisis.
The issue of teacher supply receives fairly limited attention in the various party manifestos, and none at all in the case of some. Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and the Social Democrats all commit to measures to encourage those teaching abroad to return. Suggestions as to how this is to be achieved vary, but there are references to recognising service abroad and salary calculations.
Aontú provides more detail on its proposals under this heading, promising to provide a grant to those returning together with a tax concession. Sinn Féin also commits to making full-time permanent posts more quickly available, a strategy which would certainly help, but is unlikely to have a transformative impact. Fianna Fáil (FF) promises to devise a system whereby Stem teachers can be shared across schools. Similar initiatives have been tried in the past but with limited success due to the complexities of school timetabling.
In summary, these proposals, while helpful, are insufficiently ambitious to solve the crisis.
Labour proposes to establish a teacher staffing taskforce to consider the matter and then act on its recommendations. Obviously, this would not have an immediate impact and the experience of the Teacher Supply Steering Group in the last seven years gives little grounds for optimism. However, if a genuinely independent expert group were established, and its recommendations implemented, this might prove to be a significant development.
The policy response of the Government to the issue of educational disadvantage has been to adopt a policy of positive discrimination, whereby additional resources are allocated to schools that cater for students, or really for high numbers of students, from low socioeconomic status backgrounds.
This response is crystallised in the Deis programme, launched in 2005. Since its inception, the scheme has operated on the basis of grades of educational disadvantage at primary level: band one (the most deprived), band two and rural Deis.
At post-primary level just one grade obtains. While no one would expect the Department of Education to devise a bespoke model suitable to each school, the argument has been made repeatedly that a more extensive range of grades is required. In particular the notion that all post-primary schools serving deprived areas are experiencing the same level of disadvantage does not stand up to any serious scrutiny.
In 2006, School Matters: The Report of the Task Force on Student Behaviour in Second Level Schools (the Martin Report) was published. Among many insightful observations the report observed: “The accumulated evidence before us and substantiated in a vast body of literature, is that there are considerable numbers of students in our schools who have mental health difficulties that may not be school related in their origin.”
If that was accurate then, it is even more so now.
The Martin Report recommended the setting up of multidisciplinary support teams to work with schools on behavioural and wellbeing issues. Other than a small pilot scheme, this suggestion was largely subsequently ignored. Yet, the reality is that schools serving the most disadvantaged areas are attempting to provide support to students and families far beyond the range of expertise and resources available to them. In recent years, the term “Deis+” has been employed to advocate for the provision of additional resources needed to make up for the inadequacies of the Deis scheme.
Those advocating for improvements to Deis have first-hand knowledge of what is required. Many have pointed to the strengths of the model currently being provided as part of the North East Inner City Initiative. When it comes to reading the manifestos of the various political parties, their position on educational disadvantage is not as clear as one might expect.
Six parties (FF, FG, Sinn Féin, Labour, Social Democrats and People Before Profit-Solidarity) commit to the introduction of a Deis+ model, with little or no explanation of what they understand Deis+ to be. Pertinent questions which are not addressed include: what additional services will be provided to how many schools?; does this apply at both primary and post-primary level?; how are participating schools to be determined?; what percentage increase, if any, would be applied to the modest Deis budget as currently exists?
Many would argue that an independent evaluation of the Deis programme is long overdue but there seems little appetite for such an initiative. It’s as if Deis+ has become a convenient alternative to detailed independent thinking on the part of the political parties and, to a certain extent, it is being used as a slogan.
At the time of writing, it seems almost certain that the programme for government which emerges from this electoral process will be negotiated between either one or two of the three main parties in consultation with some of the smaller groupings. Heading into the election, the stances taken by the various political parties on two of the most pressing issues affecting the education system provide little grounds for optimism.
On the teacher shortage issue, whilst some useful initiatives have been proposed, there is little sign that the problem will be tackled in any fundamental and comprehensive way. It appears that the political and administrative class is happy to tinker around the edges until changing demographics “solve” the problem.
There may be some reason for very cautious optimism in relation to educational disadvantage but, as pointed out, the commitments lack detail. A lot will depend on the negotiations that take place, the subsequent choice of minister for education, whether the next taoiseach takes the necessary steps to ensure a multi-departmental approach, and whether equity in our education provision becomes a real priority for government.
Dr Brian Fleming and Prof Judith Harford are academics at UCD’s school of education