Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Joining us today we have Maria Thomasson, CEO of Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta (CnaG); and Christine Mhic Colaim, senior education officer with Comhairle. You are both welcome. I am surprised to be greeting you at this stage of the meeting. We thought that we were going to run way over, but we have managed to recover a bit of time. I invite you to make an opening presentation, and we will then move to questions and answers.

Ms Maria Thomasson (Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta): Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Tráthnóna maith daoibh.

Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to brief you today. Before I begin, I acknowledge that we have traditionally presented our evidence in Irish. However, due to recent technical difficulties and to ensure accessibility for all members, we will present and respond in English today.

My name is Maria Thomasson, príomhfheidhmeannach

of Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta. I am joined by Christine Mhic Colaim, senior education officer. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta was established in 2000 to advise and support the Department of Education in fulfilling its statutory duty under article 89 of the Education Order 1998 to:

We are here today for one clear purpose: to express our full and unequivocal support for the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill. The Bill is essential. It would introduce a statutory mechanism that has been missing for decades: a requirement to plan strategically for the workforce that is needed to sustain and grow the Irish-medium sector.

Irish-medium education (IME) is an immersion model: a globally recognised, evidence-based form of bilingual education where all subjects are taught through Irish. The language is not simply encouraged; it is the vehicle through which pupils access the curriculum. IME serves first- and second-language learners in one model. Internationally, immersion is well established, with clear pedagogies and training requirements. Parents choose it because it works. It delivers strong academic outcomes, enhanced communication and cognitive skills, increased confidence and cultural awareness and successful examination performance. Those outcomes underpin the sector's sustained growth.

In practice, immersion integrates language and learning. Pupils move from understanding to using language, supported by structured teaching, visual aids and interaction. Children are particularly suited to that approach. Immersion supports not only language acquisition but wider cognitive development. The model has implications for delivery, including class size, where intensive interaction and structured support may require smaller groups. Ongoing research by Queen's University will further inform workforce and planning needs. We expect to launch that in the autumn.

Immersion requires a curriculum design that is adapted to reflect the realities of the immersion setting, specifically for that model. It cannot be a simple translation of an English-medium framework. While a draft version of the new curriculum is due on 16 June, it does not include Irish-medium (IM) adaptations. That work remains at an early stage. The appointment of an Irish-medium lead adviser on curriculum reform in the Department is welcome, but one individual cannot address system-wide gaps resulting from decades of limited planning. Progress depends on practitioner input, yet teacher shortages severely limit participation. That is reflected in the absence of Irish-medium representation on the original curriculum task forces that began working in autumn 2025. As a result, there is a real risk of delay in ensuring that the curriculum reflects immersion practice. The same constraints apply to developing support materials. That has wider consequences: delayed access for pupils; reduced professional learning for teachers; and negative impacts on recruitment and retention. In the absence of resources, teachers must create or translate materials themselves, which increases workload and reinforces an unsustainable cycle.

On assessment, progress is under way. The need for Irish-medium tools has been recognised, and development work is progressing. However, the key issue is capacity. Delivering immersion-appropriate curriculum, assessment and resources at scale requires a workforce with the necessary expertise — something that does not currently exist in sufficient numbers. Without workforce planning, the system cannot deliver aligned curriculum, assessment and resources.

A critical gap exists in special educational needs (SEN) provision. There are no Irish-medium specialists in local impact teams (LITs) or in educational psychology or advisory services. As a result, Irish-medium schools must access SEN support through English. Pupils are assessed in a language that is not their primary language of learning, increasing the risk of misidentification, delayed intervention and negative impacts on attainment, well-being and confidence. Teachers must adapt English-medium interventions, often without specialist training, which increases workload and undermines immersion delivery. That also disrupts linguistic continuity and weakens Irish language development. That situation directly undermines the SEN reform agenda. In practice, IM pupils do not consistently receive support from the right people at the right time or through the language of learning, thus creating structural inequity. CnaG has proposed a pragmatic model: a small cohort of specialist IM staff supporting LITs on a liaison basis. However, that, in itself, reflects workforce constraints. Without workforce planning, equitable SEN provision cannot be achieved.

The need for the Bill is grounded in clear evidence from CnaG, Stranmillis University College and Queen's University. Workforce pressures are systemic, interconnected and increasing across all phases. At early years, over 90% of pupils come from non-Irish-speaking homes, making those settings critical for language development. Classroom assistants and nursery staff are essential to delivery, yet there is a limited pipeline of qualified Irish-speaking staff. Recruitment relies on a small pool, training pathways are limited and retention is affected by lack of progression. That disrupts continuity and increases pressure on schools.

At primary level, workload is a major issue. Teachers face additional immersion-related demands, including creating and translating resources. Evidence shows that 82% of our workforce work over 40 hours weekly, 28% work over 50 hours weekly and 90% report impacts on well-being. That is driving attrition. At post-primary level, the challenge is even greater. There is a widening gap in subject-specialist supply, particularly in STEM and vocational areas. The absence of a dedicated IM teacher education pathway is central to that. The current PGCE enhancement route lacks scale and structure. While bursaries are welcome, they are limited without a stand-alone pathway. Evidence shows a clear disconnect between training and recruitment, with schools being unable to source teachers through existing routes. Across all phases, substitute shortages further limit schools' capacity to engage in professional learning or system development.

Taken together, early years provision is under strain, workload is driving attrition and post-primary supply is structurally insufficient. Those are not isolated challenges; they reflect a system that has not been planned for immersion education — ever.

We acknowledge the Department's progress, including the development of an IME strategy. However, those are baseline measures; it is not preferential treatment. A strategy is important, but it has no legislative force. It cannot compel delivery. We have seen strategies that failed to translate into sustained change. The current timeline also falls outside the mandate of the Executive, which creates massive uncertainty. The Workforce Plan Bill is critical because, while strategy sets intent, legislation creates obligation. The Bill will require the Department to plan for long-term workforce needs, model supply needs, address shortages and report on progress. It does not replace the strategy; it ensures that it is delivered.

Article 89 of the Education Order applies across all arm's-length bodies (ALBs) of the Department of Education, yet there is no consistent oversight to ensure that services meet IME needs. That leads to gaps in curriculum, assessment and support. The Bill enables a system-wide approach, ensuring that those who deliver services have the required language skills and expertise. Without that, IME will continue to rely on structures that were not designed for it. CnaG is well placed to support the work with direct sector engagement and expertise and should play a central role in workforce planning.

I want to be clear that the recruitment and retention problems and the lack of teacher supply and staff supply more generally are the biggest barriers facing the development of the Irish-medium education sector. Children in Irish-medium education deserve a high-quality system that is designed to meet their needs. The sector's distinctiveness is not a challenge; it is an asset. Immersion education brings innovation, strengthens language and learning and can benefit the wider system, but it depends very much on having the right workforce. The Bill will enable strategic planning; align supply and demand; strengthen SEN provision; support recruitment and retention; embed IM expertise across the wider education system; and deliver article 89. Without it, growth, quality and equity cannot be sustained.

Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta stands ready to support delivery. We strongly support the Bill and urge the Committee to do the same. Go raibh maith agaibh.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Maria. As I said when we heard evidence on the Bill last week, I am comfortable with its provisions. I have no particular interest in going through the Bill's principles and discussing whether they are appropriate. I am convinced of the need for the Bill and think that it is an important intervention.

The issue that I picked up with the principals last week and that I will pick up with you relates to SEN and the Education Authority (EA). When we talk about the workforce, there may be an assumption that we are talking about teachers and classroom assistants, who are directly in the front line of teaching, but, as you referenced, there is no Irish-medium expertise in the LITs or in the educational psychology teams. What impact do those gaps have on the sector?

Ms Thomasson: Absolutely. Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh

for your question. I will ask Christine to come in here. She leads and has done a lot of work in that space. The impacts are certainly wide-reaching and extremely concerning.

Ms Christine Mhic Colaim (Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta): I will start by talking a bit about the collaborative work that we have taken forward with the SEN transformation team in the Education Authority. We have been collaborating with the team over recent months around how support can be ensured through having Irish-medium specialists on the local impact teams.

It is clearly stated in the five-year delivery plan for the SEN reform agenda that "where appropriate" — that is the exact wording — Irish-medium schools and Irish-medium pupils will be supported.

It is about looking at the structures in the EA. We expect schools to use the graduated response to move through the steps of support that children need. If we start at pre stage one of the graduated response, the special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) and schools are expected to ensure that provision mapping is appropriate and that they are able to support children in all the overarching SEN categories. Without appropriate teacher professional learning (TPL) for cognition and learning, for example, that can support teachers or classroom assistants to support pupils who present with literacy or numeracy difficulties in the classroom there is no support for those pupils in the first instance.

I will move on to stage one of the code of practice. We are providing reasonable adjustments for pupils or some type of in-school intervention. Our schools report that there are English-medium resources available, such as the maths recovery programme. Teachers and assistants have been given training on that, but the language that is to be used in the maths recovery programme is very specific. The same can be said for literacy support. For a child experiencing literacy difficulty in a classroom, there are programmes such as Conquering Literacy and Alpha to Omega that are ready-made and ready to use in a monolingual system. However, those always need to be adapted or translated in some way so that teachers or SENCOs can use them for in-school provision.

That brings us to the support from outside agencies, more specifically, the Education Authority. As Maria said, no SEN specialists have been specifically recruited to support Irish-medium pupils. There has been some positive collaboration between us and the Education Authority over recent months. The EA literacy service team put together an early assessment tool, but it is specifically for finding out where a child is struggling so that the school or EA staff can provide early intervention. You are talking about the third term of primary 2 or early in primary 3. In Irish-medium schools, the whole curriculum is delivered through the medium of Irish, so it is not appropriate for staff to come in and support pupils through the medium of English.

Four specialists were seconded for three days a week in February and March to develop or translate the assessment tool. It is by no means a diagnostic assessment tool; it can be used to inform a short intervention, but it will not diagnose a child with any difficulties. We have no fit-for-purpose assessment tools that educational psychologists can use. That came out clearly in the Department's report. Educational psychologists come in and assess children through the medium of English. That is absolutely inappropriate when all the learning in those first three years of primary school and, before that, in nursery school happens through the medium of Irish.

As I said, we have been working collaboratively with the Education Authority. This point is important as it relates to the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Planning) Bill. We could not release 28 SEN specialists from our sector; in fact, we do not have 28 SEN specialists to release in order to support every one of the local impact teams. We have therefore had to be more creative. We have come up with a proposal to release a small cohort of, possibly, five to work in liaison with all 28 local impact teams in order to support them and shine an Irish-medium lens on any support that is needed.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It feels like a sticking plaster rather than a planned approach, which is often the evidence we hear across a range of issues impacting on the IME.

I have one follow-up question. You have been clear about your support for the Bill. Do you have any concerns about ensuring that the workforce plan will bring the EA into scope? It is clear that it covers the workforce, and that is a teaching function. Are you concerned about potentially tightening anything up to ensure that the EA is consulted and that the EA workforce that supports Irish-medium schools is included?

Ms Thomasson: The statutory duty, with or without the workforce plan, is that all arm's-length bodies have to report at the end of each quarter on how each statutory duty has been fulfilled. In general, there is a lack of coordination across all the arm's-length bodies. There is a small team in the EA's education directorate for the sectoral support, and they are the go-to people. I feel sorry for them at times, because every directorate says, "Oh, that's their job", when it actually applies to everyone. We may see challenges in manning what needs to happen, but that is why we need the strategic plan and the joined-up thinking. If we bring more people into the sector, there will be more opportunities. We do not have a surplus of staff at the moment, but, if we could recruit enough people and more, that would go beyond the teaching and support staff. It has to be about how many people are needed in the EA across the directorates and how many people are needed in the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). I will make an argument for Comhairle —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Maybe my question rambled too much. Should there be a specific reference in the Bill to ensure that the EA support for SEN is definitely included? There should be no get-out for the Department to say, "Well, we only looked at teachers".

Ms Thomasson: It would do no harm. We have looked through the Bill, and it is broad enough. The Bill does not specify the workforce for the IME sector, but it does not preclude them. It would not do any harm because — I am not sure whether I discussed this with the Committee — we wrangled in the past with the EA specifically about the opinion that the statutory duty applied to the Department and not the EA. There may be an argument to be made that, unless it is specifically referenced, there could be wrangling, and we do not have time for that. We need to make sure that, when the Bill passes, we hit the ground running and everybody knows what their responsibility is under the terms of the Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful. It may be something that the Bill sponsor wants to speak to, and perhaps we can discuss it on the back of the evidence session. Thank you for your time.

Mr Sheehan: Tá fáilte romhaibh.

Ordinarily, I would put my questions as Gaeilge,

but I want to ask an important question. I am not specifically referring to anybody in the Committee, but people who may be opposed to the Bill are people who have no fluency in Irish.

I want you to answer a question about the main argument that people use to oppose the Bill. At the start of the mandate, I intended to introduce an Irish medium-education Bill that would have been much wider-ranging. It would have taken into account the resources for Irish-medium assessment, materials and accommodation. However, you are probably aware that the Speaker made a ruling that private Members' Bills needed to be narrowly focused, and the workforce issue was one of the most important issues. You said that it will be hard for the sector to develop without changes being made to workforce recruitment and retention.

The opposition to the Bill comes from people who believe that, if the Bill passes, it will give an unfair advantage to the Irish-medium sector: what do you say about that?

Ms Thomasson: I do not agree with that. I think I said in my opening remarks that it is not about preferential treatment. Some of this is about putting in the most basic of baseline measures to bring us up to par. I liked the analogy that, I think, Mícheál Mac Giolla made last week of the child in a classroom with a statement of an additional need who is allocated additional support. It is not that the person sitting beside the child with additional support is disadvantaged; it is a recognition that that child needs something different.

As sectors, we all have distinct challenges. As a young sector, there are many things in infrastructure and support that we do not have. I am glad that you mentioned that we need more because we are constantly wrangling with the conversation about accommodation, and that has massive impacts on our ability not only to grow current provision but to engage with, for example, specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS). Not only do our schools not have accommodation, many sites do not have the space to receive, even with the additional SEN capital budget.

It is about understanding that we are in a different position. We are starting in a different place. There is an argument that we have a statutory duty and that already gives preferential treatment, but we have had the Lord Justice Treacy ruling. We have had the Drumragh judgement, which also applies to us, that came through the integrated sector that the statutory duty should be more than aspirational. Unfortunately, it is very much still aspirational.

We often get back from the Department the line that it is cognisant of its statutory duty to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium education. What I am not clear on, however, is what that means, and I think specifically of capital call lists or things in the past, when preference was given to, say, schools that were closing to amalgamate. Obviously, we are not in that space. We are a growing sector. We do not fit into area planning. The raison d'être of area planning is to rationalise the schools estate, but that does not work for a young, growing and developing sector. In our space, I am thinking, what does that mean? If, in the Department, you are sitting in early years, in curriculum or in area planning as an official, are you sure what you need to do to show what that cognisance means? We nearly need a test like that for section 75 — that framework of, "Yes, I've applied; yes, I've done due diligence". That does not exist. Saying that we have that already in the statutory duty, if that was working, we would not have this Bill. I suppose that Pat would not have had to introduce the Bill.

All sectors have distinctive needs. We saw that most recently in the debate about the need for a controlled schools unit. In the workings around that there is an acknowledgement that controlled schools are not getting what they require. That is placed against what the likes of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) provides to Catholic maintained schools, and there is a feeling that controlled schools are not receiving that from the Education Authority. I cannot understand how that can be accepted and acknowledged and there cannot be an acknowledgement that, "Actually, this is an equity piece". I have said this before to the Committee, and I do not like using the same analogy, but there are some new faces, so they will not have heard it. We have this conversation about the difference between equality and equity. Equality is giving every child a shoe; equity is giving every child a shoe that fits.

I just cannot fathom the argument, and I do not agree with it. It is not about one sector. I should say here — it was remiss of me not to say it, and Diarmuid Ua Bruadair mentioned it last week — that it is not the Irish-medium sector, the integrated sector, the controlled sector, the voluntary grammar sector and the Catholic maintained sector. The Irish-medium education traverses all sectors, so it is the English-medium system and the Irish-medium system.

We have provision in voluntary grammar, integrated, controlled and maintained. We also have the majority of our schools in other maintained. The level of need reflects what is required and that is what is in the Bill, so that would be my answer to that. I am not sure whether Christine has anything on that.

We have already mentioned SEN, which is really pertinent as well. The SEN piece is the shoe analogy. We hear that all the time. Our services are available to all schools, but, if it does not work and the shoe does not fit, that is a false narrative that has to be challenged.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We need to draw it to a close there, unless you have anything to add, Deputy Chair.

Mr Sheehan: That is all I have, Chair. Thank you.

Ms Hunter: Thank you so much. Go raibh maith agat

to the panel for being here today.

I have one question about retention. Last week's panel talked about how growing numbers of young, talented Irish speakers who want to go into the Irish-medium sector are going to Australia or, often, down South, where the conditions or the pay may be better, and it seems a bit more attractive than in the North. Can you speak to that? You talked at length about the workload and the stress that teachers are experiencing. As a Committee, we want to drive home the key point to the Minister and really home in on the importance of the Bill. Is there anything that you would like to add about why, you think, retention is a key issue?

Ms Mhic Colaim: Yes. Cara, thank you very much for your question.

It is important to, first and foremost, look at the four-year BEd pathway for primary school. There are 18 places on the BEd primary pathway, and it is a four-year course. It is about what happens before we get to the retention piece when the graduates graduate and are ready to take up post. It is important to note that we have been looking at this with the Irish-medium initial teacher education (ITE) provider, and it has come to our attention that there are very small numbers — maybe one, two or three graduates — nearly every year who, by the time it comes to the third year, transfer across into the English-medium BEd course. There are a number of reasons for that, and we are working our way through that with the ITE provider. In the first two years, for example, their school experience is all in the medium of English, so they are working with a plethora of resources that are available to English-medium schools. Teacher professional learning is mostly based on a monolingual system, and, although students might start their third year in the Irish-medium course, it quickly becomes evident to them that an additional set of competencies is needed to teach in an Irish-medium school. That is the first point that I want to make.

You mentioned that some of our students or graduates go abroad and take up opportunities to travel and enjoy life, maybe in the sunshine — something that we are not often afforded here. We would absolutely not stop students or graduates taking up those opportunities and living life. They will all draw from those experiences, but the important point to make, Cara, is that, when they return after five or 10 years, it is often more difficult to entice them back into our sector and into Irish-medium schools. A lot of graduates and teachers have reported a loss of confidence in their language competence. Other teachers have got used to teaching in English-medium schools and in British schools abroad, where they do not have to translate or trans-adapt. There is a lot of trans-adapting or translating. Those words are thrown about all the time when we talk about immersion education because we do not have a fully resourced curriculum. I understand that we are moving into the space of curriculum reform. That is exciting for us as a sector. We see opportunity, and we hope that we will have a fully resourced curriculum, but, at the minute, with this 20-year curriculum, we are not in that space.

I have already mentioned support for teacher professional learning. It is much easier to receive teacher professional learning through the medium of English. I am here today as senior education officer of Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, but it is important to let you know that my experience is 17 years of teaching in Irish-medium schools. That has involved different coordinator roles, including numeracy and literacy coordinator, and my most recent role was vice principal, which involved pastoral care and SEN. We try to adapt some of the teacher professional learning available from the Education Authority and make it fit for purpose for Irish-medium schools. However, that is not always an easy task.

We presented anecdotal evidence in our 2023 paper, 'Ensuring Effective Teacher Supply in the Irish-Medium Sector', to suggest that 15% of our graduates move into English-medium schools, again for the reasons that I have outlined. Those of you who live in a border county will know that schools in the South have better conditions and higher pay. Irish-medium schools across the border have recently reintroduced a teaching allowance that recognises the additional workload. That has all been outlined, and, in her opening remarks, Maria mentioned the independent review of workload and the independent research carried out by Stranmillis University College.

It is important to highlight the lack or absence of appropriate post-primary teacher training. We mentioned the bursaries, and, while those are welcome, the courses are not meeting the demand in schools. There does not seem to be any joined-up thinking between the ITE providers and the schools on where the gaps exist. Those gaps will change over time; teachers will retire, go out on maternity leave or go on long-term sick leave. There seems to be no joined-up, strategic thinking on the types of subject specialists that we need.

That brings me to the pathways question.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have to ask you to be as brief as possible.

Ms Mhic Colaim: I am sorry, Nick. There is just so much to cover and so many holes to plug.

There are eight ITE places for post-primary PGCE students, but you have to apply either to Ulster University or Queen's University to be placed on those courses and then show an interest in the Irish-medium enhancement course leading to the certificate from St Mary's University College. We find that teachers are, perhaps, going from primary-trained ITE courses to plug gaps in post-primary schools as general teachers or with perhaps a background in Irish, where other pathways have not been available to them; they cannot study Irish with maths or Irish with science. They are being thrown in; they are being retrained within their profession, and that is at the expense of the school. We heard last week from Mícheál Mac Giolla Ghunna and Diarmaid Ua Bruadair that they are having to be innovative in their schools in order to retrain teachers to best support their pupils, so that they can provide not only for Key Stage 3 but for the entitlement framework for the range of subjects at GCSE and A level.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We will have to draw this to a close.

Ms Mhic Colaim: I am sorry, Nick.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No, you are OK.

Ms Hunter: That has been really helpful. Thank you so much. You have made the case for the importance of future-proofing Irish-medium education as well as the gaps that still exist.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Cara. I appreciate that there is so much to cover on these issues. I remind members and witnesses to keep each contribution to about five minutes.

Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agaibh, Christine agus Maria.

I wanted to pick up on Pat's point about a number of things that have been said as to why we do not need the Bill. We have heard from the Department and the Minister that an Irish-medium strategy is coming, so we do not need the Bill. The Irish-medium strategy is being developed, so we do not need to worry about this. What would you say to that?

Ms Thomasson: I said a bit about that in my opening remarks, Cathy. Thank you for the question, because it warrants a little more digging into that. The big issue is that the strategy has no legislative protection around it. Like other strategies, it may lie on the Department's shelf without ever being implemented. Unfortunately, we have experience of that. There was the 2008 review of Irish-medium education and the work that we did two years ago, I think — time flies — to review that review, but all of its actions or recommendations remain either not implemented or partially implemented. There was no green in the red, amber or green (RAG) table.

There is the initial concern about what will happen with the strategy, but the bigger concern, which predates all that, is about whether the strategy will ever see the light of day. I should have said in answer to the Deputy Chair's question that the Minister acknowledged the need for additionality and support in our sector and the need to look at things strategically. That is why he gave approval for work on the strategy to begin in the first instance. He did that, which, of course, we welcome, but it was clear from the outset that the strategy would not be launched within the mandate. The initial time frame is mid-2027, which is post-election. Will another Minister come in and take the strategy and run with it, or will it just fall down the list of priorities?

No money is aligned to the strategy. There is a modest amount of money involved in delivering the Bill, but there is no money at all for the strategy. We are looking at a seven-pillar model in the strategy. We have been working on it for a year, since last April, and we are only on pillar 3. I am not sure that we will get another four pillars done before the deadline. I also noted the disappointing comment from the Department that, if the Bill passes, it may have implications for the strategy, so there is massive concern about whether it will even come to pass.

The strategy work has been positive in many ways. A working group comes together monthly. I sit on a steering group; unfortunately, we have met only twice, which is also concerning, because that slows down the ability to progress the working group's recommendations. However, there is an opportunity to come together, and I definitely feel that the Department is learning more about our sector and is understanding the issues. It has been a deep dive, initially into accommodation and infrastructure, and the next one was the teacher supply piece.

I worry that the strategy will be a wish list. I have been told that we at the table are a group of very informed, key stakeholders, but, as I have said from the outset, I worry that we are all conflicted around that table. The Department said from the outset that the strategy must be modest, achievable and affordable, whereas I am of the opinion that it needs to be ambitious and meet the emerging needs of our sector. We need an independent view on that. We have independent panels all over the place in education looking at the curriculum, assessment and workload: why can we not have an independent view on the strategy? We have not progressed it very far.

For all those reasons, I am concerned about the strategy and where it is heading. It definitely sits nicely alongside the Bill, but the Bill is stronger. If I were betting, I would put my money on the Bill making a difference rather than the strategy.

Mrs Mason: It is funny, although I do not want to use the word "funny", that you have said that, because we recently heard the Minister say at a conference that the Department is full of strategies that are sitting on a shelf gathering dust.

Ms Thomasson: Yes, I heard that.

Mrs Mason: The fear is that this strategy would be another one of those. To round it up, is it fair to say that, if a strategy is developed, it could be a set of ambitions that might or might not come to fruition but that the Bill will provide legislative underpinning and there would be an obligation to deliver it?

Ms Thomasson: The strategy is what the Department should do, but, as I understand it, the Bill is what the Department must do.

Mr Brooks: Thanks very much for the presentation. I will pick up on one thing that Cathy said at the end of her questions, which was that the Department is full of strategies gathering dust. I did not hear the Minister say that, but I would go further: it is not just the Education Department that is full of strategies gathering dust. Since I got here, it has been apparent to me that this Building is full of strategies gathering dust. That is largely because there are huge resource pressures. It takes me back to the point that was made. The Department's approach is realistic, and I wish that all Departments would take the same approach. It is nice to go to voters and say, "Look at this grand suite of ideas about what, in an ideal world, we would all do", but, if more of our strategies and plans in this place were step-by-step, modest and achievable, we might get somewhere. The problem is, as we understand, that we have resource pressures. The Department of Education is looking at a deficit of £600 million next year. All political parties are probably guilty of this: we are all keen to list all the new things that we want to be added to the list of things that we do, although we cannot pay for what we have at the moment. That is an issue.

I was not even going to ask questions, because we have covered a lot of the issues in other sessions. You talked about the amalgamation of schools. Pat often refers to the statutory duty for Irish-medium education. We will see increasing pressure to rationalise schools through amalgamation and other methods, because we will have a significant drop in the number of children. That is a strategic pressure that the Department will face. Given that we are looking into that situation, why do you feel that Irish-medium education must be first in the queue at every point? Is that what you think? I do not want to put words in your mouth. There are other pressures that have to be dealt with that the whole education system across Northern Ireland will face. Is there not a danger that, if we say that one sector must always be prioritised, we will never get to the work of reforming the system?

Ms Thomasson: I am not sure where to start on that, because I was halfway through thinking while listening to you. Thank you for the question. I should have made notes. If there is anything that I do not pick up on, come back to me.

I have two roles, for my sins. I am chief executive officer and accounting officer for the organisation, and so I am acutely aware of budget pressures. Our budget is under extreme pressure.

Mr Brooks: No doubt.

Ms Thomasson: We do not have the ability to overspend: we are not allowed to go beyond our budget, as other bodies do. There is very little room for us to manoeuvre: 85% of our budget goes on salaries. It is very small, and we are a tiny fish in the big pot, but we do our bit. I am not saying that Irish-medium education needs to be first in the queue; I am saying that everybody needs to be looked at in the round.

On the issue of the declining birth rate, we make up just over 3% of the overall education population, so, while every other sector is at its ceiling, we have a massive amount of headroom in which to grow. We have a lot of places to grow, and there is a 97% chance of growth for us. It is therefore a bit different for us in that our sector continues to develop while others diminish.

We have been having conversations about what community schools will look like in the future. We are open to having those conversations, so long as there is not — I am trying to think of the word i mBéarla

IME needs to be in that. What does it look like in a community? What is the SEN provision? What is the IM provision, if parents and the community want it? That is not the space that we are in. We are still in that place.

The Treacy judgement states that it should not be just aspirational. The statutory duty allows the Department to go further and to do more. It is not always the case that it does that. I do not think that we have ever seen our sector taking from other sectors. I think that —.

Mr Brooks: Do you accept that the Department is not able to meet its aspirations across the board?

Ms Thomasson: Absolutely. That is why the Bill is measured and moderate. It could and, I would argue, should have been much greater. We should have accommodation in there. That is why our schools cannot get involved in SPiMS: we are not in a position to buy new sites, and there is no money in the sector. We are absolutely and utterly not meeting any of the demand for Irish-medium education. We are not in a position to engage with communities that regularly knock on our door wanting new Irish-medium provision, because there is no money for that. We are still responding reactively; we are not able to work proactively. We have a small team, and we have lost members of that team as the sector and the demand for our services have grown.

As I said at the start, we have played our part: we are not going over budget, and we are not being reckless in what we do. Our business plans and all that are tight. I do not think that the Irish-medium sector —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Please draw it to a conclusion.

Ms Thomasson: — is causing the deficit in the wider piece. I do not mean to put one sector above another or to suggest that we are special. If support is required, we need to look at what the proportionality of support looks like for a sector, and there is no proportionality; it is just —.

Mr Brooks: If the Chair does not mind —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Very quickly.

Mr Brooks: — I want to explain what is often framed as hostility from the unionist side. I have no problem with anyone who wants to access Irish-medium education, and I see the genuine issues that you face, particularly in recruiting specialists, which other schools also struggle to do, because you make an additional ask of them; I get that. However, so many of the things that you list are things that I see in my constituency, so it is hard for me to justify making a distinction. I often cite Dundonald High School as an example. When I walk around a school such as that, I see that it is falling apart. It is about how we balance those needs across the system, and I just think that it should be done on an equal basis. I am sure —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will just have to —.

Mr Brooks: — that there are different arguments around that. Thank you.

Ms Thomasson: I will come back on that with the fact that, on Monday, the Minister acknowledged again the need for additionality in our sector. That would be applied appropriately and modestly, so we do not need to keep —

Mr Brooks: I am not rejecting that; I am just —.

Ms Thomasson: — rehearsing that. There is an acknowledgement.

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Ms Thomasson: It is felt more acutely by us; that is all I can say.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Understood. Both participants had the opportunity to set their position out.

Mrs Guy: I have to follow that. Thank you very much. I will pick up on what has been said. It is absolutely true that there will have to be reforms to the system to accommodate the changes in pupil numbers, and that will have to take account of demand. That is perhaps why demand for integrated education is not being presented accurately and why there are manufactured arguments about this sector or this type of education wanting special treatment. That is not true. You have made a really good case for its being different and its need for additional support. Like the Chair, I see the need for the Bill and support it.

I will pick up on what Cathy said and home in on the idea that legislation is enough to get the workforce plan implemented. Are you concerned that, although the Bill will require the Department to create and publish the workforce plan, there is no real guarantee that it will be delivered?

Ms Thomasson: Speaking personally, I note that, when anything IME-related is discussed on the Floor of the Assembly or at the Committee or when research is published and highlighted, we hear a little about that. That is why we ended up having a strategy: it came off the back of the review of the review that stated that the 2008 review of IME was sitting gan déanamh

unimplemented. Having these conversations is really helpful. It shines a light on the issues.

I wrote a note on your question, but, if I have not answered it, please remind me.

Having the conversations and getting that acknowledgement is healthy. It does no harm to shine a light on things. When people know that they have to report on anything, whether that is by coming before you and answering your questions or in another way, there is nothing worse than sitting here without the answer to the question or anything of substance to show.

Of course, there is always a bit of trepidation about what it will mean. Will it be lip service? Will we have a repeat and a rehash of the statutory duty? I reassure you that we will be all over that, keeping a close eye on what comes out the other side. As David said, resources are tight. We do not have the luxury of spending; the Department has agreed on that. We do not want to be in that space when it comes to a strategy. We do not want to spend our time and limited resource on a process-driven piece that will not then be implemented and make a difference on the ground. It is about ensuring that whatever we do is tangible, even if it is modest.

That is what I wanted to say: we have no issue with moving a little at a time. We do not expect the world overnight; none of us can have that. However, if we see that we are moving in the right direction — maybe, in the first 18 months or so, it may not be what we need it to be, but, if we can see the sparks of light —.

We are reasonable and rational people. If we can see that there is a commitment and that we are moving forward, we will know that it will be better the next time. There is trepidation, but we can work together. We will absolutely do what we can. However, it needs to be coordinated. It is important that we put the limited resources that we have in the right place.

Mrs Guy: There needs to be a level of transparency that has weight and credibility about what the needs are and whether they are being met.

Ms Thomasson: Absolutely. We also sometimes see an over-reliance on headlines that make it look as though a lot is happening. The bursary piece for IME is an example. That is welcome, but it is not fit for purpose. We are working with the Department on that. There are things that we need to do in that space, so that we do not come back and say, "But we're doing something". We do not want to keep coming back, looking like we are being unreasonable. It is about getting rid of false narratives and making the process look like the impact. We need to make sure that what we do is tangible on the ground and that it is for the betterment of the children sitting in the classrooms.

Mrs Guy: My last question is about the data that is available to measure success. Proposed new article 89ZA(6) states:

There is no real clarity on what those "measurable targets" would be. Is enough data available right now to baseline the workforce requirements, and do measurements need to be in place so that improvement can be seen over time?

Ms Thomasson: Yes. I will talk briefly about that, and I will then ask Christine to come in briefly.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask you to be very brief. More members are looking to get in.

Ms Thomasson: Our 2023 paper, 'Ensuring Effective Teacher Supply in the Irish-Medium Sector', is referenced in the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum. We have continuously worked on amending that and adding to that, because it is a changing and fluid picture. We will continue to do that.

I am not sure whether you, Christine, want to say anything about data.

Ms Mhic Colaim: As Maria has said, we have projections for how many teachers we will need to appropriately supply Irish-medium schools. The issue of data has come up a couple of times in recent Assembly debates and discussions. There is a narrative in that regard. I have looked at the improved intakes for ITE courses over the past number of years on the Department of Education website. There is talk of protection for the Irish-medium ITE places. It looks as though 580 ITE places are provided in most years. In 2023 and 2024, there was a dip to 567. We have 46 places for Irish-medium intake across primary, PGCE and BEd and an additional eight spaces for the post-primary enhancement course. There were 13 fewer ITE places, which makes up a 2·24% decrease. That is the equivalent of one ITE place for Irish-medium. Although it was protected, it works out at 1·03 places, which is interesting.

A lot of that was based on the DFE skills barometer of 2019, but, in 2020 and 2021, there were additional places because of the regrading of exam results: it went up to 643 places across primary and post-primary. The 13 fewer places were two primary PGCE and 11 post-primary places. We do not have a fit-for-purpose course for post-primary. There has been a lot of talk about the data in Assembly discussions and debates. When you crunch the numbers available on the Department of Education website, you find that it equates to 1·03 people.

Ms Thomasson: Just on that —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We really are up against it for time.

Ms Thomasson: — it is really important not to skew that data. It has been stated as a preferential piece. It was one person.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is important to note.

Mr Baker: Thank you so much. When it comes to resources or budgets, there is never a problem for the Minister's priorities. You are not being unreasonable at all in your asks for the sector.

Just listening to that, I was a wee bit taken aback when you said that the strategy is only at pillar 3. You said that there has been some positive work, but the Department, when it came in, was almost telling us that the work was flying and everything was going really well. How many meetings have taken place?

Ms Thomasson: The strategy work began in April 2025 during the Easter holidays. There have been monthly meetings since then. Now, if you take out July and August for holidays, there have been around 12 or 13. I watched the meeting with the Department that day. I do not know whether the officials had just miscalculated. Certainly, the numbers were correct, but the period of months was not accurate, in my view. That was maybe May or April time, so it was a 12-month period, and they said that it was six months.

There is an awful lot to do. I think that even a year and a bit or two years — two years by the time that we get to the end of it — is ambitious, given that we are talking about generational neglect and the need to look at that properly. We are not going to get it done.

How many meetings of the working group are there per pillar? Is it three?

Ms Mhic Colaim: Four.

Ms Thomasson: It is four per pillar, so, if you have four one-and-a-half-hour meetings on teacher supply and you have a wealth of people in the room and everybody has to have their say, it is not a lot of time. As I said, the steering group has met twice, which really concerns me. I have had to push back on that. The second meeting was cancelled initially and then brought forward, so we have met twice since September. I have asked for a series of meetings to be put in the diary because we need to keep moving at pace. It is a big ask. We need to keep the momentum going. It is a concern. I was concerned by that meeting.

Mr Baker: It really concerns me when they say, "We do not need the Bill", "The Bill will get in the way of what we are trying to do", and, "Look, we are having loads of meetings". I do not know how many meetings they are having. When I ask the question, I take the information that is given to me in good faith.

Ms Thomasson: Of course, yes.

Mr Baker: I am not saying that they have deliberately misled me or anything, but it gets the question answered and gets them out the door. That is really frustrating. We can pick that up as a Committee going forward.

There have not been many meetings. Has the Minister been to any of them?

Ms Thomasson: No, the Minister has not attended any of the meetings of either the working group or the steering group. I have never been informed that the Minister would ever be involved in those meetings. It has never been discussed. I do not think that it formed part of the terms of reference either. I have not been expecting him.

Mr Baker: I am not saying that he would be expected to go to everything; it is just that you have someone who gets up, especially during the Second Stage debate on the principles of the Bill, and is steadfast against it and says, "I have the strategy in place". I do not know how much engagement there is. That is another world. It is not very fair on the sector. That is why I started by saying that it comes down to priorities: everything comes down to priorities. If it is not a priority for that Minister, it is put on the long finger. Look, thank you for the answers that you have given me. I can pick up on the other stuff.

Ms Thomasson: Very briefly — I know that I am getting daggers here — I agree with that. Earlier, I mentioned area planning briefly and the whole need for rationalisation of the school estate. We hear so much about there being too many schools, but that has not been a priority lately. It has not featured within the space of TransformED. You are thinking, "That is where the most money is being sucked out of the system: schools that have empty desks". To come back to something that Michelle and, probably, David said, that whole conversation is about money going in to sustain two large sectors, and two small sectors — us and the integrated sector — are not getting any airtime, never mind oxygen, or any benefits from that. It is concerning.

The other thing that I want to say is this: for too long —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will have to rush you, Maria.

Ms Thomasson: Yes. For too long and too often, the strategy has been used as an answer for everything. That is concerning: is it something that we will work on really proactively for two years and then nothing comes out? In the meantime, we are not getting anywhere on anything because we are working on a strategy. That is where we are focusing at the moment. That is concerning.

Mrs Middleton: Thank you, Maria and Christine, for being here. You will be aware that I am a fairly new MLA, so this has been really comprehensive for me. Thank you very much.

I concur with David's comments, so I will not rehearse them. Some of the questions that I was interested in have been asked already. I reassure you both — I think that I speak for all my party — that our priority is young people and children. It does not matter to me which language they are learning as long as they get good education. I certainly think that that is the case for the Minister as well.

My question is about retention: I am interested in the challenges. It is OK if you do not know the exact data, but are those challenges more prevalent in primary schools or post-primary schools? Do you have any idea of why that is the case, aside from the pressures that you have outlined?

Ms Thomasson: Thank you for the question. On the attrition rates, I know that, on paper, we train enough primary teachers, but only 40% of them make their way into the sector. I am not sure about attrition coming out of the sector beyond that 40% or whether there is anything particular there. Workload is a massive piece across the board, of course, but it is particularly prevalent in primary.

Ms Mhic Colaim: On the data piece, with just eight places for post-primary training, there is not a whole lot of data. To pick up on what Michelle said, the Workforce Plan Bill will really open up the need for better tracking of data. We are working with the Irish-medium ITE provider at the minute. We are collaborating with it to better track the data. Graduates are under no obligation to let the ITE provider or the university know where they have gone or what they are doing. Given that we are a smaller sector, it may be easier to get the information anecdotally from friends or lecturers at the university. They may or may not know where those people are. That is why it is vital that we have a workforce plan moving forward.

Ms Thomasson: You said that quality is the most important bit. Without a workforce, how can we ensure the quality of our education system? I have heard some of our principals — I will not say who they are — say, "Accommodation is something that we all struggle with. We'll just have to get on with it. We always have". We cannot keep the doors open if we do not have the staff there.

Mrs Middleton: I absolutely understand. I am not in any way being rude or anything —

Ms Thomasson: No, no, no.

Mrs Middleton: — but I work with other schools as well, and I know that, for instance, a school in Tyrone has holes in its roof and is waiting for that to be remedied. Because we discuss things separately, you do not always get the overall picture.

Ms Thomasson: Of course.

Mrs Middleton: However, I take on board what you are saying, so thank you very much.

Ms Thomasson: Go raibh maith agat.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Julie. There are no further indications from members.

Thank you for your evidence. I appreciate that you are so passionate in support of your sector, and I know that it probably always feels as though there is more to be said. We really appreciate your time today.

Ms Thomasson: Go raibh milé maith agat.

Sorry for giving you a headache there. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You are all right. I am well used to it, Maria. Do not worry about it.