Colleagues:
Many of you will be interested to know about the meeting which was held yesterday with the international review panel established by the Minister for the Department of Employment and Learning, Stephen Farry MLA. Here is reminder of the panel membership:
• Professor Pasi Sahlberg (Chair), Visiting Professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education
• Professor Patricia Broadfoot, CBE, Professor of Education at the University of Bristol
• Professor John Coolahan, Professor Emeritus at the National University of Ireland Maynooth
• Professor Dr John Furlong, former Director of the Oxford University Department of Education
• Professor Gordon Kirk, OBE, Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Edinburgh and
Academic Secretary to the Universities' Council for the Education of Teachers
• Professor Patricia Broadfoot, CBE, Professor of Education at the University of Bristol
• Professor John Coolahan, Professor Emeritus at the National University of Ireland Maynooth
• Professor Dr John Furlong, former Director of the Oxford University Department of Education
• Professor Gordon Kirk, OBE, Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Edinburgh and
Academic Secretary to the Universities' Council for the Education of Teachers
In attendance from DEL: Mrs Carol McCabe
The following is a list of those who represented the College:
• Professor Peter B Finn
• Bishop Donal McKeown
• Dr John Sweeney
• Mr Brian McFall
• Miss Rachel O’Hare
In attendance from St Mary’s: Miss Eilís McAteer
• Bishop Donal McKeown
• Dr John Sweeney
• Mr Brian McFall
• Miss Rachel O’Hare
In attendance from St Mary’s: Miss Eilís McAteer
My own evaluation is that the outcome of the meeting is the best we could have hoped for in the circumstances, but, in essence, nothing has changed.
I believe that our case was well made, and it was substantiated by plenty of evidence. As we had guessed, the first line of questioning by the panel was on educational research. Other areas of discussion included school partnerships, cooperation with other institutions involved in Initial Teacher Education (ITE), our role in Continuing Professional Development (CPD), our vision for the future, ITE as a vehicle to improve community relations, patterns of school experience, integration of ITE and levels of international student mobility.
I am sure you will agree that these are all worthy educational issues, but, for the most part, they are about teacher education provision and lie within the domain of the Department of Education and not within DEL. This point was made to the panel in the strongest possible way. Their argument is that they cannot address the issue of infrastructure without examining the whole system of teacher education first. I have no doubt that is true, but their remit is restricted to the vires of DEL and we will continue to press that critical point at a later stage and in a different forum. The panel did not engage with us on the critical issue of options for infrastructure change.
On a more positive note, the chair of the panel, Professor Sahlberg, acknowledged the reputation for high quality ITE which St Mary’s has earned, and he commended the institution on its provision. I believe that the members of the panel were genuinely impressed by the condition of the campus, and they expressed the view, which we share, that students deserve to have the best facilities. Our policy of investing in the estate is driven by the aim of providing even better facilities in the College in which students and staff may learn and work. That policy will continue into the future. The colourful, well-designed and informative displays throughout the College were commented on favourably by the panel, and I wish to record my thanks to those who provided displays.
Yesterday’s visit by the panel was very important, and we took it seriously. However, it is just one staging post in a process, and I can assure you that the guard of College management is not down. Most disappointing is that the panel did not engage on the core aspect of its remit: options for infrastructure change.
I am very clear that Stephen Farry and others still have intentions which are not for our benefit, to put it mildly, so we will remain very focussed on the review whilst at the same time continuing to develop the College in the context of Strategy 21, the College's institutional plan for sustainability. It is essential we all continue with our contributions to build the capacity and strength of the institution, and, parallel to that, we will engage in political lobbying, which is so essential at this time.