Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Nov 2012

Vol. 784 No. 1

A Framework for Junior Cycle: Motion

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

welcomes A Framework for junior cycle which was launched by the Minister for Education and Skills on 4 October 2012;

notes that the new junior cycle programme will provide for a broader education for students including:

— a greater flexibility for schools to develop their own programmes to meet the needs and interests of their students;

— a focus on improving students’ learning experiences through a change in approach to curriculum and assessment;

— a new school-based model of assessment to replace the junior certificate which will measure the full range of students’ abilities; and

— a phased approach to implementation,

starting with the introduction of English and short courses for students entering post-primary education in 2014;

notes the commitment given by the Minister to fully resource the changes required for implementation, including continuing professional development for principals and teachers;

urges all stakeholders to co-operate in the implementation of these reforms;

welcomes the emphasis in the junior cycle on improving the quality of learning experiences and educational outcomes for students; and

supports the ambition to put the needs of Ireland’s young people at the centre of the second-level education system.

Why is change necessary? In late 2011, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, advised me on making changes at junior cycle in its report, Towards A Framework for Junior Cycle. Research underlines the reasons change is necessary. Under the current model, a significant number of first year students do not make progress, particularly in English and mathematics. A significant number of students in second year become disengaged from the learning process and find it almost impossible to reconnect to learning subsequently. Choices made as early as first year of junior cycle, for example, to take ordinary rather than higher level, are almost impossible to reverse. These choices can limit the options open to young people for the leaving certificate and even after leaving school. This is a particularly important issue for students in lower stream classes and those in disadvantaged schools.

In third year, the junior certificate examination dominates the experiences of students. The focus of learning narrows, the emphasis is on rote learning and for many students the examination does not lead to positive learning experiences and outcomes. We also know that assessment practice at the end of junior cycle is out of line with best practice in many countries with high performing educational systems. For example, in New Zealand, Finland, Scotland, the Netherlands and Queensland high-stakes public examinations are confined to the end of the senior cycle, in other words, when young people are around 18 years of age. These countries emphasise school based assessment approaches throughout the lower secondary cycle. School based assessment approaches have been adopted because research shows that the learning experience of students is narrowed if an assessment system is restricted to assessing them through external examinations and testing. This occurs because both teachers and students focus on learning what is necessary to do well in final examinations, rather than on pursuing an educational programme designed to meet students' needs.

I considered the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment's advice, as set out in its document, Towards a Framework for Junior Cycle. Its approach was developed following an extensive consultation process with parents, students, teachers, school managers and the wider public. I have accepted much of the advice in the document for my framework for junior cycle. I am aware that staff of the NCCA may come to the Gallery later. I pay tribute to the team led by Ms Anne Looney who have been instrumental in developing these reforms.

In the strategy on literacy and numeracy which I launched in July 2011, I highlighted that reform of the junior cycle would provide an important opportunity to improve literacy and numeracy standards at junior cycle. This reform will achieve this objective in a number of ways. It will create time for schools to focus on literacy and numeracy, embed literacy and numeracy in learning outcomes for all subjects and short courses and allow schools to tailor junior cycle programmes which meet the specific needs of their student cohort.

The framework I have adopted is underpinned by eight principles, namely, quality; well-being; creativity and innovation; choice and flexibility; engagement and participation; inclusive education; continuity and development; and learning to learn. In addition to literacy and numeracy, six other key skills will be embedded in the learning experiences and outcomes of every junior cycle subject and short course. These are: literacy and numeracy; managing myself and staying well; communicating; being creative; working with others; and managing information and thinking.

The learning at the core of the new junior cycle is described in 24 statements of learning. These focus on what students should know, understand, value and be able to do at the end of junior cycle, having fully engaged with and participated in the junior cycle programme of their school. All students will be required to cover the 24 statements of learning which are focused on areas such as communications; language; mathematical concepts; critical thinking; citizenship and sustainable values; environmental, economic and social knowledge; consumer skills; information and communications technology, ICT; creating and appreciating art; valuing local and national heritage and recognising the relevance of the past to the current national and international issues; well-being; and ethical and responsible decision-making.

I welcome the fact that the syllabus design for each subject and short course will follow set specifications. They will set out not only the knowledge to be acquired, but also the skills and attitudes that students will develop. The syllabus specifications will be accompanied by detailed examples of how students should be able to demonstrate their learning in order that teachers will be supported fully in enabling students to achieve the objectives of the curriculum. Revised syllabus specifications will be prepared by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment on a phased basis to enable schools to absorb the changes in a managed fashion.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment will also prepare seven short courses for 2014, namely, civic, social and political education, CSPE; social, personal and health education, SPHE; physical education; digital media literacy; artistic performance; Chinese; and programming and coding. It will be open to schools to develop their own short courses reflecting their local needs and in line with the NCCA template. The framework also provides for priority learning units for students with special education needs. There will also be one centrally developed short course on a personal project for such students.

As schools design their programme for junior cycle, they must be mindful of the principles, key skills and statements of learning. However, it is important to emphasise the flexibility that will be available to schools. This flexibility will empower schools to meet the interests and needs of their students. It is important that the programme provided to students is not overloaded and will allow them to engage in quality learning experiences. In this context, there will be a limit to the number of subjects and short courses that will be included for certification purposes. Most students will study eight to ten subjects or equivalent for certification. A maximum of four short courses, each equivalent to half of one subject, may be included for school certification.

Not everything that is taught in schools will be for certification. In particular, schools will continue to make provision for guidance to students. This will relate to assisting students to acquire self-management skills so as to make effective choices and decisions about their lives. Provision for guidance will also continue to encompass the three separate but interlinked areas of personal and social development, educational guidance and career guidance.

Framework principles such as continuity and learning to learn, key skills such as managing myself and a number of the statements of learning, especially those linked to making decisions, will be useful in informing guidance provision. In accordance with current policy, schools will continue to have flexibility in deciding how they will make provision for guidance.

I am convinced that all the elements of the framework I have outlined constitute a major development for second level education. This is how we can accommodate difference and begin to address inequality in society.

Given the evidence available to me on assessment for this age group, I have decided to go beyond the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment's advice on assessment. I want to ensure formative assessment becomes a key part of teaching and supports learning across the three years of junior cycle.

I also want teachers to provide high quality feedback to students and parents. The opportunity for such an approach to assessment is significant in situations where that assessment is no longer high stakes. In the junior certificate, we have a State examination that has all the arrangements and hallmarks of a high-stakes examination. As long ago as 1975, however, an official report commented that "for a large and increasing number of candidates, the [State examination at the end of junior cycle] is not necessary or useful as a qualification for jobs". The examination referred to was the intermediate certificate, which was replaced by the junior certificate examination, but the question is more relevant than ever.

The overwhelming majority of students completing the junior cycle go on to study at senior cycle or in other forms of education and training. A recent report from the Department noted that some 90% of our students now complete senior cycle. I welcome the fact that our retention rates continue to improve.

Real change only occurs in education when there is real change in assessment. This is what the evidence has been telling us for many years. For this reason, the best performing educational systems have placed assessment of learning at the lower secondary education level in the hands of schools, teachers and students. This is why we need to reform radically the way we assess students' learning in the junior cycle.

I want to liberate our teachers from narrow exam-based programmes. I want them to fulfil their potential as leaders of education learning. I want to put students at the heart of this change and to give them the opportunity to develop all of their skills and talents fully. To achieve this, we must ensure that assessment becomes a key part of teaching and learning across the three years of the junior cycle.

During the next eight years, I will phase out the traditional junior certificate examination. Students rather than subject examinations will be at the centre of the new approach to assessment. The junior certificate examination will be replaced with a school-based model of assessment. The shape of this has been covered extensively in the media, but I want to give the House an opportunity to consider my vision of how the new assessment arrangements will work.

They will embed assessment both for and of learning in the classroom and will involve schools and teachers in ongoing assessment of students' progress and achievement. Clear and unambiguous guidance for teachers on standards will be provided in the specifications for each syllabus. This will guide the assessment of students' progress and enable teachers to chart the next steps for each student's learning. Teachers will also have access to the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA's assessment and moderation toolkit and continuing professional development, CDP, which I will refer to in more detail later.

Assessment in the new junior cycle will be based on evidence of learning coming from school work and a final written assessment. The school work component will be based on work completed by the student during second and third years and will be marked by the teacher in the school using a marking guide included in the specification for the subject. Generally, it will be worth 40% of the marks awarded to the student but may vary, depending on the subject content. The kinds of work involved will include assignments, projects, case studies, performances, oral activities, written pieces and tests of different kinds. Schools may use developments such as e-portfolios to enhance the changes that this school work component can provide. To support this, I have already convened an education and industry group to advise on how ICT can be used to enhance the junior cycle experience at school level.

The other part of assessment is the final assessment component. This will be a single written paper or assignment and will generally represent 60% of the marks. In the first few years of implementation, the papers will be set by the State Examination Commission, SEC, and made available in May of each year. The papers will be administered and, for the most part, corrected by teachers as part of their assessment of students. In the case of English, Irish and mathematics, the papers will be corrected by the SEC during the transition period. The primary purpose of the certification at the end of the junior cycle will be to support learning over the three years. We must move beyond examinations to a process of generating evidence of learning and of sharing feedback.

The reporting system at the end of the junior cycle consists of two key elements, those being the school certificate and other learning experiences. The school certificate will give the grades achieved by students in the subjects and short courses taken for certification, those to which I have referred. There will also be an opportunity for the school to comment on the student's achievement and other learning experiences during the junior cycle, to provide advice on further development in respect of same and to comment on aspects such as attendance, personal and social development and learning dispositions that are not part of the certification process. Most importantly, it will provide an opportunity for the parent and student to comment. Parents will strongly support this system once they see how much additional information they will receive about their children's educational and personal development.

I assure the House that this is not a cost saving exercise. It is about ensuring that we do better and provide our young people with a quality learning experience that has positive educational outcomes. Nor is it about creating more work for teachers and principals. It is about changing the focus of the work in schools, moving it away from terminal examinations and putting the student and the student's learning at the centre of everything we do. It is not about doing more, but about doing better for students, parents and teachers.

I assure the House that I will secure the resources necessary to bring this vision to fruition. I will ensure that schools, their principals and teachers will be provided with the necessary CPD to enable them to implement the framework from the 2013-14 school year onwards. Dr. Pádraig Kirk, the CEO of County Louth Vocational Education Committee will be the director of the new dedicated CPD junior cycle team. The team will concentrate on the introduction and implementation of the framework for the junior cycle with a particular emphasis on assessment. The estimated cost is €3.6 million in 2013 and €8.7 million annually from 2014 to 2018. Resources have been set aside for this purpose.

The NCCA will begin to develop curriculum, standards and supports immediately. Not only will there be the subject and short course specifications but also an assessment and moderation toolkit. The specifications will include examples of student work that illustrate the standard of work expected from different kinds of students at different stages of the junior cycle. This will be augmented by the resources within the NCCA's assessment and moderation toolkit. Teachers, parents, students and the general public will have access to all of these materials. The SEC has begun planning for its phased withdrawal from junior cycle examinations. It will continue to provide papers and marking schemes to schools for all subjects into the medium term.

In addition to the supports for teachers that I have outlined, for quality assurance reasons and to determine national standards, I plan to introduce standardised testing in second year for all schools in English reading, mathematics and science and in Irish reading for Irish medium schools. These tests will provide a good independent indicator of student progress in the middle of the junior cycle programme. In addition, the results awarded on every school certificate will be sent to the Department, which will monitor the national and school patterns along with the results in the standardised testing of reading, mathematics and science. This monitoring will provide further quality assurance and identify any local or national anomaly. A report on overall trends will be published annually.

The Department will provide each school with a data profile arising from its statistical analysis that will advise the school of patterns in their data relative to national norms of achievement. The data profile will also provide schools with information on their patterns of achievement relative to schools with a similar school context. This data will help schools to refine their assessment and moderation practices. It will also be a valuable source of information for schools' self-evaluation processes. In the event of an unusual pattern of achievement in a particular school, the inspectorate will be advised and support and evaluation measures will be provided for the school.

Through a commitment to the implementation of all aspects of the framework, the education system will be able to deliver a junior cycle that places the needs of students at the core of teaching and learning. The comprehensive implementation of the framework will improve the quality of the learning experiences and outcomes of all students. This will require leadership and support, not only from the Department of Education and Skills, NCCA and SEC, but in particular from school management.

It will also require the commitment of teachers, the support of parents and high expectations for all students. The skills and abilities of our young people are the key to Ireland's success in the future. Our young people can only fully realise their potential if we give them the tools they need and that is what this process will do.

I thank the Minister for his presentation, for his efforts thus far and for ensuring we had a debate in the Dáil on this very important issue. I join with him in welcoming Dr. Anne Looney and representatives from the NCCA. I commend them on their work, as the Minister did, in putting together the report on the reform of the junior certificate which was given to the Minister. I also commend the Minister's staff who have worked with him on this issue.

As the Minister will be aware, my party has been very much in favour of reforming the junior certificate. The former Minister, Batt O'Keeffe, initiated contact with the NCCA on this issue. Following on from that, former Minister, Mary Coughlan, initiated a consultation process on junior certificate reform which culminated in the presentation by the NCCA of a report on reform of the junior certificate to the Minister.

Like the Minister, we believe there is a real need to reform the junior certificate curriculum and how it is taught but we have concerns about the way he has gone about this thus far. Eight years is too long to deliver the new junior certificate curriculum. We understand the work entailed but we believe it could have been done in fewer than eight years. Part of that is due to the fact that from the outset, we do not have a clear implementation plan on how we will go about this. If more forethought had been given to how it could be done and the process involved, it could have been achieved within a shorter timeframe. We have concerns in regard to the removal of any form of external examination from the junior certificate and the impact of history and geography not being compulsory. There are issues there which need to be considered.

There is a strong body of evidence to support the need for radical reform of the junior certificate. A post-primary longitudinal study carried out by the ESRI and funded by the NCCA followed a cohort of 900 students in 12 case study schools from first year in 2002 to completion of the leaving certificate in 2007 or 2008. It found that the first few years of a young person's experience in school were critical and that under the current structure, young people's experience of the junior cycle was quite fragmented between first, second and third years. First year naturally involves a certain degree of turbulence for all students as they adjust to their new school setting, especially adjusting to different teaching methods and more subjects than they were used to at primary level. The study also found that many students became disengaged, in particular those coming from working class backgrounds and males. Many students who struggled with their school work in second year found it hard to regain that lost ground and performed poorly in their junior certificate and leaving certificate examinations.

Fortunately, we have seen much improvement in retention rates. A report published by the Department in the past couple of weeks showed significant progress in that regard. We have seen a 9% increase in overall retention rates in the past ten years or so from 81% to 90%. In particular, we have seen a bigger increase in DEIS schools. The figure has increased from 69% to 80%. That increase in more disadvantaged areas, in particular, has fed into the overall improved rate. Many measures and policies were implemented to try to achieve that and it is very positive to see that 90% of students are staying in school to leaving certificate level.

We must come up with a plan to bring the retention rate to 100%. We want all students to complete second level education, whether to the leaving certificate or a similar qualification which is appropriate to their particular skills and aptitudes. We should not see students becoming disengaged from the second level system because the structure of secondary education is not optimal in terms of retaining them. Undoubtedly, the improvement in the retention rate has been assisted by the fact there are not the pull factors there might have been four or five years ago. The policy approach taken has also had a real impact in that regard. However, we must acknowledge there are still issues in terms of how curricula are established which affect retention levels. Addressing junior certificate reform is a very important element of this.

Two years ago the OECD PISA study showed that standards of reading and mathematics among Irish teens had fallen dramatically. Since 2000 we fell from fifth to 17th in reading and from 16th to 25th in mathematics. That was the sharpest drop in standards in any developed nation. Under the new junior certificate, students will fortunately sit standardised tests in literacy and numeracy. That drop emphasises the need to look at how we reform the curriculum we have.

As I pointed out, implementing this over eight years is unnecessary. Undoubtedly, much change will be required across different subjects and in regard to how our teachers deliver the curriculum. To introduce a system where we start with one subject - English - in 2014, which will not be examined for the first time at junior certificate level until 2017, followed by Irish the following year-----

There is a group of subjects.

In phase two, it will be Irish, science and business studies. All subjects will start the new reformed curriculum from 2017. That will mean it will be 2020 before all subjects at junior certificate level will be examined under the new curriculum. That is a very long period of time during which there will be much change in schools and confusion in terms of exactly what the curriculum being provided is and of students being aware of what the qualification they will receive will be. If there had been more prior planning put into how this would be delivered, it could have been done within a shorter timeframe. At the outset, we could have had a clear pathway as to how we would go about doing this.

Although the Minister ran with and published the NCCA report and is grasping the challenge of reforming the junior certificate curriculum, the haste with which he made the announcement without engagement on how it would be delivered and on getting more agreement and co-operation from the teaching profession, will make it more difficult to deliver it within a reasonable timeframe and to ensure the people who will be absolutely key to delivering the curriculum will work with him from the outset. A key concern, which has been expressed by teachers, in particular, parents and students is the fact there will not be external marking of the 60% examination students will have to take as part of their school certification.

If one looks at the experience in Britain, one will see that its Government, department and even schools are saying that taking that approach has led, unfortunately, to there being an incentive for particular schools to inflate scores in marking examinations. There is a genuine concern about that with regard to the Irish education system as well. It is interesting to note that Britain is looking at the option of introducing state examinations and more state involvement in marking examinations. We must take note of the lessons there. We must also listen to the concern of our teachers, students and parents about that aspect of the marking and address it in the implementation plan in terms of how the final curriculum and structure will look.

Undoubtedly, changing the junior certificate curriculum is about trying to change the way students learn. It is about trying to move away from learning for the examinations to engaging students with the subject and with thinking on it by trying to remove the amount of rote learning. It is also about reducing the significance of the examination in the context of the learning process. However, the examination will continue to account for 60% of the marks. We must ensure that there is a consistent standard of assessment of students and how they are faring at junior certificate level across the country. If the first time there will be a full State examination across the different subjects will be in the final year, this is something we will have to assess and revisit.

I asked the Minister yesterday about the level of engagement there had been between him and the teachers' unions since the announcement had been made. He indicated that he planned to meet with them in the near future. Considering some of the responses from the teachers unions following the announcement, it would have been opportune and appropriate to have met with them before now. The president of the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland, ASTI, Mr. Gerry Breslin, for example, said that ASTI members were appalled by the Minister's lack of consultation with classroom teachers prior to his announcement on junior cycle reform. In a letter to The Irish Times on 19 October, Mr. Gerard Craughwell, president of the Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, said that he wished to strongly refute the assertion that the Teachers Union of Ireland had signed off on the Minister's proposed changes to the junior cycle. That is not an ideal way to start off such a major reform. I urge the Minister to engage immediately with the teachers' unions to assess how he can get the teachers to work with him in ensuring that this reform will work properly. Consider the results of the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, reform initiative, which was the key reform undertaken since the Minister took office. We have yet to see delivery of that reform. There are lessons there in terms of the type of approach that is required to ensure that something works.

As the Minister knows, reform is not just about making the announcement, but about ensuring it is delivered in a way that achieves success. I am concerned that the timeframe the Minister has provided for the junior cycle reform puts its implementation well beyond this Government's term of office. By 2014, we will only see English kicking off under the new curriculum and the first examinations will not happen until 2017. That will be well past the Government's term and well outside the remit for which the Minister has control. That is unfortunate because it is important that the person who takes the initiative and sets the template should also have responsibility for delivering it in so far as possible. There are legitimate concerns, given the results we have seen with the SUSI initiative, that there will be a similar level of promises of reform not being matched by the delivery.

To conclude, we favour reforming the curriculum but I have outlined some of our key concerns and we will engage on them in forthcoming months. I ask the Minister to take them on board.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this motion. It gave the Minister the opportunity to address some of the concerns voiced to the Minister about how this was announced and how it will be implemented, so it is an important debate. At all times we must strive to implement what is contained in the Department's mission statement, which is to enable learners to achieve their full potential and to contribute to Ireland's economic, social and cultural development. No Member of the House would disagree with that. At a time of great economic difficulty and social upheaval, which has resulted in hardship for many in society, the importance of implementing these laudable aims is greater than ever.

To the Minister's credit, he has made the reform of the junior cycle one of his priorities since taking office. He outlined some of the background to the development and thinking behind the reform of the junior cycle and spoke of how Ireland's ranking in numeracy and literacy levels fell over a number of years. There are many reasons for the drop in standards. One cannot pinpoint a single area as there are complex, multifaceted reasons for it.

It was due to that worrying trend that I believe the Minister put so much focus on reforming the junior cycle, and we welcome that.

I realise it is stating the obvious but it is vital for the development of our education system that we get this reform right. The previous speaker referred to the timeframe the Minister proposes for implementing this reform. While there might be some concerns about that, it is better to do it over a longer period and get it right, rather than rush it. I am not very concerned about the timeframe the Minister envisages. It is far more important to ensure the processes are put in place, all the stakeholders are on board and everybody knows their responsibilities. If that takes a little longer that we would like, we will reap the dividends in the longer term.

Some of the proposals referred to in the motion will form part of a wider, overarching strategy for our education system. This reform is only one element in education. We see the benefits with the legislation relating to SOLAS in terms of higher learning and the benefits of that. We have seen some of the success with primary schools. Therefore, we cannot look at the reform of the junior cycle in isolation, but as part of the entire education cycle. However, one of the challenges will be resourcing it. We are considering the reform of the junior cycle at a time when we are faced with huge economic challenges. There have been cuts in the education budget over a number of years and there will be further cuts this year and next year.

The cuts have an impact on how this reform is implemented and we need to be conscious of that. Last year's cuts and the cuts that will be announced this year will have an impact on front-line services. The greater the impact on front-line services, the more difficult it is to implement reform at this stage. We need to be conscious of that point. Notwithstanding that, there is a sense of nervousness or anxiety about the changes from some of the stakeholders. We need to examine in a constructive way what is being proposed. We need to work collectively towards implementing an improved school curriculum and the reform proposed by the Department. We are talking about the future educational attainment of our children. The Minister stated the need to improve the future life chances of students in school is central to the reform of the junior certificate. This involves shifting from the rote learning system to a system that improves the quality of student learning and the outcomes. For that reason, in principle we welcome the move away from the terminal exam, where the focus is on one exam.

The focus on continuous assessment will reap dividends. The research shows that ongoing continual assessment of students' progress is better over a longer period of time rather than assessment through a one-off, final exam. The Minister mentioned some of the models in his contribution and the one that comes up most when I speak to people is the Finnish education model. The success of the model exists where the school has no standardised testing because it narrows the curriculum. The focus is on testing rather than the teaching process. The change in the curriculum is not without challenges for stakeholders. Some of the concerns raised by previous speakers notwithstanding, it is a step in the right direction and I appeal to everyone to work together constructively and try to implement this as quickly as possible.

The Minister referred to going beyond some of the recommendations and he outlined the reasons for that. Regarding the concerns raised, some people are talking about this leading to league tables and schools' assessments not being an accurate reflection of students' abilities. It remains to be seen whether these genuine concerns are well-founded but they need to be factored in. We need to address these points if there are genuine concerns. One of the key considerations behind the proposed new approach is to expand the number of options schools can offer students. The Minister touched on one of the key elements: flexibility. It is critical because without that flexibility the Minister cannot hope to achieve what he set out to do. Within the three-year cycle, schools may be able to implement a combination of subjects, short courses and other learning experiences. It will provide a much better tailored junior cycle, which can be matched to schools, baseline demographics and student profiles. This is critical. All of this is being done to enhance the involvement of students and their parents in shaping the programmes that will best serve the students. That is what we need to retain in focus. If we do so, it will be a progressive measure and the benefits will be borne out in the longer term.

The Minister referred to the potential of priority learning units. They are important aspects of the reforms. They will allow students with learning difficulties to attain the best possible outcomes. It is a key part of the reform and we welcome it.

It will also form part of the national qualifications framework.

I think they can achieve level 2. Maybe we can consider going beyond that to level 3 qualifications.

It is a key part of it and it is important. Another aspect focuses on additional teacher training. This poses challenges for the Department in respect of how we will resource it. Additional funding must be found to enable teachers to upskill. It will require rethinking on the part of the Minister. Some criticism has been levelled at the Department, correctly, in respect of some of the proposals that disincentivise teachers from upskilling. I refer to the pay differences of new teachers coming in, which has an impact on teacher morale. There is a challenge for the Department, the Minister and all of us. We have collective responsibility to address it.

A previous speaker referred to concerns about history and geography. We need to take on board such concerns.

There is no proposal to prohibit people from doing history and geography.

I know that. There has been media commentary to that effect, which is why today's debate is important. It allows the Minister to set out an answer to the criticism. History and geography are vital and the Minister has said that it is not his intention to downgrade these subjects. We all know the advantages of history and geography and the Minister is well aware of it.

The unions have raised some concerns around how this was announced. We addressed the matter during Question Time on Tuesday when the Minister said he was meeting the unions. The unions met officials from the Minister's Department on Tuesday and outlined their concerns. We cannot change what has happened but we must work in the collective manner to which I referred earlier. We must take on board the concerns and address them as best as possible.

We will see the benefit of these proposals in the long term. We cannot look at this in isolation. We must consider the overall reform the Minister is trying to implement. I appeal to people to work together constructively and to be open-minded about proposals. What we are attempting has not been done before. There will be challenges in doing that.

There is also a huge opportunity and we must grasp it. We are talking about improving an aspect of post-primary education and making courses more suitable for students rather than gearing them towards one examination. What we are beginning will shape future educational experiences for hundreds of thousands of students who will come through our system.

We look forward to working with the Minister on those challenges and we will play our part in that in a full and constructive manner. Where there is criticism to be levelled we will level it. When good proposals come forward we will recognise them. We look forward to working with the Minister in the coming weeks, months and years in implementing this reform. We all want the same thing. We may differ on how to get there and on the timeframes but we all want to achieve the same thing. I wish the Minister well in the task he has undertaken and we look forward to working with him on it.

I have no doubt a great deal of work has gone into producing the framework. When I came to read it I took a little trip down memory lane, having been a teacher in a voluntary secondary school. I taught the old leaving certificate course, the old intermediate certificate course, the new leaving certificate course, the newer leaving certificate course and the current junior certificate course. I went though the various other curriculum changes that came in during the course of my 35 or so years as a teacher. My school bought into so many things the Department introduced. I go back to the late 1970s when psychologists brought in the idea of developmental group work, which was totally new at that time. We took part in all of the training sessions for that. Another programme called PACE lasted a certain length of time and disappeared. My school was a pilot school for On My Own Two Feet. My own and other schools were receptive to other initiatives and programmes that were introduced. A recent one which was introduced shortly before I was elected to the Dáil was the Cool School initiative. It is a very good programme that ran very well in my own school and still does.

Then we came to school planning and the myriad of policies and plans that consumed my last ten years of teaching, took up so much time at staff meetings and was so consuming of teachers' time and energy. We had plans and policies for everything. Who was that for? I think it was just to satisfy the inspectors. I have grave doubts as to the benefit of those policies or what they added to my ability and the ability of others to teach. No amount of paper, policy or planning can substitute for the role of the teacher in the classroom and the teacher's ability to teach and connect with students.

Schools and teachers coped with all those developments and changes. They also coped with inclusiveness, welcoming students with special needs into mainstream classes and bringing in individual lesson plans for differentiated learning. They coped with mixed ability teaching, new technologies, leaving certificate applied and the new junior certificate as well as extra curricular activities. At secondary level, they also coped with the influx of foreign national students, some of whom came in as teenagers with not a word of English. That created a strenuous demand on schools. Of course, whenever a social ill came to the fore in society it was left to schools to look after it.

Teachers have shown themselves to be extremely flexible and adaptable. They are now coping with the recent funding cuts and the loss of so many experienced teachers through early retirement.

I can understand the frustration and reluctance of some teachers to take up another change, positive though aspects of it are. There are misgivings and reservations about some aspects of the framework. Last week, we debated the Credit Union Bill 2012 and Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI. Both credit unions and the old third level grant application system had positive things in them. They were in need of change but the expression, "throwing the baby out with the bath water" came to mind. There is an element of that in the new junior certificate framework. I want us to maintain what is good and positive and strengthen it instead of eliminating it and bringing in something else.

I am annoyed by the suggestion that nothing was achieved in the current system of junior certificate and, by implication, leaving certificate, because people are also casting doubts on the leaving certificate. We are doing something right, and we have been, because our graduates are sought in so many walks of life and by so many companies and institutions. I am always struck when I meet past pupils, and I have many of them after 35 years, with how well they have done in a wide variety of careers. They are articulate and hard working. Our current system produced that.

I had a look at the foreword to the framework and some of what the Minister said today. He said the new curriculum will focus on improving students' learning experiences. No teacher would be against that, but that is what has been going on. Teachers are constantly striving to do that and to make the learning experience meaningful. The Minister mentioned that a significant number of students do not make progress in first year, particularly in English and mathematics. They will not make progress unless they have a certain standard of literacy and numeracy when they come from primary school. I greatly welcome what the Minister is doing for primary schools but it is unfair to blame the junior certificate for that aspect. There is disengagement at second year for some, but changing the whole junior certificate is extreme. Other things are happening to young people at the ages 13 and 14 that can also contribute to that disconnect. Third year is challenging, but that is positive. Life is challenging and schools are supposed to prepare young people for life. Teenagers must be exposed to challenge, pressure and stress. When it happens in a school environment a student can be supported by teachers and staff.

The junior certificate does dominate third year. The Minister mentioned that the focus on learning narrows in that year. I would say a different focus of learning comes in at that stage. It is about preparing for an examination and is a useful exercise. Students are focusing on the examination, which is positive, and learning how to answer questions and to give answers that are relevant to the questions asked. There is a positive outcome because there is a sense of achievement in completing the examination. Some do not do as well as they could and should, but there is support within the school to deal with that. Some do better than teachers might have expected. We can look at that.

There has been mention of the emphasis on rote learning. Some rote learning is very good for the brain. The dumbing down of rote learning does it a disservice. Some rote learning is necessary at all stages of schooling, primary, secondary and third level. What one does with what has been learnt by heart is the kernel. I taught English. I encouraged my students well, I made them learn certain lines from poems, from the drama they were studying and maybe a quote from a particular critic. They would use those lines in their answers to develop particular points. That was the value of rote learning.

I am from the time when children learned tables by heart. I can rattle them off now. Today, a young person who is asked to add seven and six will probably reach for a calculator. We have to look at that one again. I recently met my Irish teacher from secondary school, cainteoir ó dhúchas í ón Daingean, and we discussed learning Irish poems by heart. This gave us a sense of how the words were to be said and we became familiar with the sayings and phrases. I am sure this also applies to French poetry.

I hope medical students do some rote learning so they know a certain list of symptoms indicate a particular illness rather than another one. I am sure the Minister did some rote learning as a student of architecture and that students of engineering, science and accountancy do the same. There are areas where rote learning is needed.

All teachers want their students to enjoy the learning experience and to benefit from it. Teachers are constantly motivating and encouraging students. Students have always been at the core of this.

I taught history. The junior certificate history syllabus did need reform. Young people really enjoyed first year, when they went back to pre-history and archaeology, studied the evolution of man and then looked at early monastic settlements. Much creative learning and different methodologies were used. Second year was difficult, because of the topics chosen for that year. The students bought into the third year syllabus because it looked at the modern world, at how our country came to be where it is today and at fascism, communism and socialism, social history and colonialism.

Unfortunately, I must leave now. I appreciate the Deputy's contribution and those of other Deputies. I will be paying close attention to the rest of what she has to say.

We are coming to the decade of commemoration and it is vital we continue to give students a sense of their history. How can we know where we want to go unless we have a real understanding of where we have come from? History was taught in an innovative way in most schools with different methodologies. The examination needed to be looked at because there was such a wide divergence between pass and honours level examinations in history. The new course will be introduced to first years in 2017, and like others I hope it will be a core subject that goes into detail.

There are, however, two statements of learning in the new framework, statements 8 and 9. Reading them I can understand the fear on the part of history teachers that the framework document will undermine the role of history in the junior cycle. Geography teachers are also worried about their subject. Students could end up under those two statements of learning studying a short course on cultural studies and after a visit to a place of historic or cultural significance, that is the end. Those visits, however, currently form part of the history programme.

I taught the old intermediate certificate course in English. It was restrictive but it had one valuable aspect that we have since lost - grammar. It is a horrible word and people do not want to hear it but students have lost the sense of constructing sentences, knowing nouns and verbs are necessary and how to be able to put sentences and paragraphs together. The junior certificate course in English is flexible and adaptable; there is a wide range of poetry, novels and plays that young people can be exposed to and teachers have that choice. During my years as a teacher, the examinations were fair at the three levels, foundation, pass and honours.

There is a fear among teachers that the design of short courses places another strain on an already strained timetable. There are definite issues of resources and time. Teachers are overwhelmed with in-service training days at this stage and no doubt there will be more in-service days under the framework for the new junior cycle.

There is a lot of controversy about school books. The publishing companies have done great work in producing English books at junior certificate level, there was a great variety that opened up teachers' and students' ideas to other poets or writers they had not considered. I would now fear that a publishing company will produce a text on a particular short course and that will determine what short course will be taken up in schools.

The new focus will mean continuing professional development for principals and teachers. This comes at a time of cutbacks and there is a sense in schools that this is a cost cutting exercise for the Department. So much has been put into in-service training for the current system but we are now into another system. It is almost as if what has happened in previous years is irrelevant and we are about to start all over again to reinvent the wheel.

I agree with continuous assessment. Every teacher already participates in that; we give homework, correct it and keep records. Those records are very beneficial for discussions with students and parents at parent-teacher meetings. It is different, however, for teachers to be judge and jury on the terminal examination for the junior certificate. The current examination is corrected fairly and anonymously. No one correcting is subject to outside influence. I feel for those teachers in schools and communities where they might be subject to pressure from parents they know well. School-based certificates are also problematic. Will certificates from certain schools be more prestigious than other schools? The junior certificate as it is did not present those problems. There was a fair system of correcting and appealing marks.

Many teachers do not agree with the first main examination being held five or six years after students come into school, with nothing in the meantime to prepare them for it. The reduction in the number of subjects, however, is welcome. The second language may not be a core subject. Anything that will create a sense of Irish being a spoken language must be welcome, as the Minister of State is aware.

There is a range of courses for pupils with special needs. Will certain courses be of a higher status? That would have administrative implications. There is reference in the framework to guidance and we know that guidance hours are being cut in schools. How will that connection be made?

I spent my life as a teacher drawing up statements of learning. Teachers buy into statements of learning every single day but they do it through the current system. The Minister made a point in his speech about putting children in first year into an ordinary or higher level. That does not happen generally. I would hate to put a student in a box at 12 years of age and say he or she would do pass and not honours courses. Most schools are fair and allow for the fact that children develop.

Quality learning is currently taking place. We must look at reform but we must not throw away what is good and positive in the present system, making change for the sake of it. There is a feeling, however, that the Minister just wants to get rid of what is there at present. There are so many other areas of need in education, such as the inequality of access for and the lack of representation of those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds at third level. If the Minister is looking for something new, there are other areas he can reform. On the question of consultation, a random selection of teachers would be a fair way to proceed rather than sending out an invitation for people to take part.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. The last three contributions have been thought provoking. If I disagree with Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on anything it is on the issue of rote learning. While I agree rote learning for the sake of it is not necessarily a bad thing, I have a huge problem with rote learning for the purpose of career selection, with a person's life charted out according to rote learning.

I spent some time teaching but I was also in the first class that went through the new junior certificate in 1992. By and large it has remained more or less the same in that period. Credit where it is due, it needed to be changed. Deputy O'Brien summed it up well earlier, it is a major change and must be done carefully. Rushing into it and putting an unnecessarily short timeframe on the programme would do this an injustice and create an even greater problem. In the context of rote learning for a high stakes examination at 15 years of age, there is an obvious need for State assessment but the 15 year old will have spent the first eight years in a school setting that discouraged rote learning will then enter second level where it is almost all rote learning. He or she will then at third level enter an environment of continuous assessment, so there is no clear passage from primary to secondary to tertiary in terms of the methodologies used for teaching and the outcomes for the person from the learning process.

I would look at this based on expectations and outcomes. At primary level, huge emphasis is placed on the child being an active learner in his own education. That is part of what the Minister wants to achieve. Some teachers are good at predicting what quotation, theorem or maths question will come up. We must then throw into the mix the grind school mentality. Some people are at an advantage when they sit the State examination compared with those who may not come from the same socioeconomic background.

Much of the debate is predicated on our literacy and numerous levels, which are in a serious condition. The Department of Education of Skills would be failing in its duties, and we would be failing in our duties, if we do not ask why after 14 years of continuous education, we are still producing a small but significant number who are leaving school functionally illiterate.

They cannot complete a basic form or carry out a basic mathematical operation in their heads. We need to ask whether the system is fit for purpose and I believe that is what the Minister is trying to do with this debate.

It is essential for the Department of Education and Skills to engage with other stakeholders, in particular employers, about what will be needed in the future. For example, I welcome the inclusion of Chinese as an option for this cohort of students for the first time. I also welcome the inclusion of computer coding in terms of developing future IT skills. However, is there room for Portuguese and Russian to be included as languages given that the emerging markets of Brazil and Russia are among the largest of the countries we are trying to get into along with the other BRIC countries?

This change cannot be done in isolation. There is a review at primary level in terms of how the curriculum might be overloaded, particularly for junior and senior infants. The junior cycle is now being looked at. As I said on Tuesday during questions to the Minister, this needs to be part of a package that includes the leaving certificate. As the previous speaker said, we have a lot of time now and I would really encourage the Minister to look at the leaving certificate. We need to put some form of continual assessment and real-life experience into it. We have all been in examinations, for example the driving test, where we have had a bad day. A person's entire life, whether it means getting into third level, or getting a trade or job, should not be based on one bad day. The concept of continual assessment for the junior certificate must also translate itself into the leaving certificate because this reform on its own may come a cropper which would be very unfortunate.

I spent a short time as a teacher and I was very lucky to be involved in curriculum development - albeit curriculum development in agriculture the South Pacific. No course had been established when I arrived and we set one up for the entire country based completely on continual assessment because we wanted people to have some practical experience of the subject they were dealing with when they left school. Therefore, I very much welcome the Minister's proposed changes. I went through college where continual assessment formed part of the course, although when there is negative marking as part of the continual assessment it makes it very difficult from that perspective.

Today 60 CSPE students from Naas CBS came to Leinster House. I asked them if they would prefer continual assessment or a single examination. Strangely there was a 60:40 mix in the response. I asked those who said they would prefer continual assessment why they would prefer it. They made two valid points. They spoke about the stress of a single examination at the end of a three-year period or in the case of the leaving certificate at the end of a two-year period. They said they would prefer a series of tests or assignments over a period of three years. They also regarded it as advantageous to be working continually throughout the three-year period instead of having to cram in all the information into the two-month period before that one single examination. The Minister should not only consult with unions and teaching bodies, but also with students to ascertain what they feel would be of benefit to the educational system.

In recent weeks I met parents, principals and teachers who expressed other concerns to me. They are concerned about the consistency of the marking, particularly in certain schools. Teachers are concerned that personalities might be involved. In a small school, a student's parent might be teaching him or her and there might be a particular perception of the credibility of the marking system in that case. I would prefer to see more external independent assessors involved, which might afford an opportunity for retired teachers or young teachers who have not been able to access educational employment to get involved in that aspect.

The other concern relates to the dumbing down of subjects. When I did the intermediate certificate, it was a respected examination because people could leave school at that stage and get into a trade. When I completed my leaving certificate it seemed to be a major examination. People with a leaving certificate got jobs - it was possible to get into the Civil Service with two honours in one's leaving certificate. Now the minimum requirement is a basic degree and in some cases further qualifications are needed. I love history and I am concerned that subjects that are not part of the core subjects for the new junior certificate curriculum might lose priority in schools.

Small schools might not be able to provide the short courses required. They might have five students who want to do Chinese but are not able to do so.

Principals have pointed out to me that they are required to include religion even though it might not be considered a core subject. However, it is taking up considerable time in the school. We need to question the necessity of having to have religion as a core subject without it having an examination.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this debate on the reform of the junior cycle. I thank the Minister for opening the topic to debate in the Dáil. My party spokesperson on education has already outlined that our party is very supportive of this welcome reform. This reform was started by the previous Minister for Education and Science, Mr. Batt O'Keeffe. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Quinn, on carrying forward these proposals to implementation. I also thank the officials in the Department and the NCCA.

The original junior certificate was designed in 1989 and unfortunately it became a mirror image of the leaving certificate in that it involved rote learning, teaching for tests and a lack of critical thinking on the part of students. A recent ESRI longitudinal study found that the first few years of a person's experience in school is critical. In the light of that, the proposed reform of the junior cycle is a very positive development and we compliment the Government on it.

I always felt the junior certificate cycle was very unfair as is the leaving certificate. Students work very hard for three years to the junior certificate or five years to the leaving certificate and their educational attainment is all based on a two-week period. Three years of working hard at school all come down to those two weeks in June.

Students may become unwell, a death in the family may have occurred at that time and they may not be able to deal with the immense pressure they are under in that two-week period. It is welcome that high stakes exams at the end a three-year period will no longer be a feature and that there will be continuous assessment. The work of students who perform well throughout the three years will be acknowledged and the focus will no longer be on two weeks of examinations after a three-year period. As a previous speaker said, it is welcome that this change is being made to the junior cycle but we should also examine implementing such a change to the leaving certificate cycle. That two-week period of examinations is a token in terms of whether students get what they want at third level. If a student has an off-day and they are not able to handle the pressure on them, the current system is unfair. It needs to be examined as we move forward. This framework for the junior cycle is welcome.
I welcome that the new junior certificate will highlight the importance of literacy and numeracy across all subjects. This is important bearing in mind that an OECD report published two years ago noted that the standard of reading and mathematics among Irish teenagers had fallen dramatically since 2000. It is important that emphasis would be placed on numeracy and literacy skills in the junior cycle. The focus in the junior cycle will also provide students with the ability to design and take ownership of their own learning, and that is welcome. This should lead to increased student engagement and better educational outcomes.
The six key skills embedded in the subjects, namely, managing myself, staying well, communications, being creative, working with others, and managing information and thinking, are important. They are about life learning rather than learning for the sake of an examination. In the context of the skills of managing myself and staying well, representatives of Comhairle na nÓg appeared before the Joint Committee on Health and Children today and spoke about requirements in the curriculum in social, personal and health education and relationships and sexuality education. These are important areas in terms of young people managing themselves and staying well. They are areas that should be examined. The four representatives highlighted that there was an inconsistent approach in teaching these critical subjects in the curriculum in the junior cycle.
Being creative is another important issue. We talk about innovation and creation being the way forward. It is important to tap into young people's minds to encourage people who have creative and imaginative minds to flourish. That key skill in the curriculum is also welcome.
There are many exciting proposals in the junior cycle reform and I compliment the Government on those, but not to sound like the cheerleading backbencher, we would have a number of concerns about the proposals as well. This is a major policy change and we are concerned about the lack of consultation with relevant stakeholders. The teachers' unions in particular have expressed reservations about this change in terms of the lack of consultation. I have concerns about the Minister's form with regard to policy development. We have witnessed him come into the Dáil, hold up his hands and apologise twice. The first occasion was for the reversal of the DEIS cuts following the budget last year, when he said he had got it wrong and that he was out of practice. The other occasion on which he apologised was only last week in response to Private Members' business on the new policy initiative, SUSI. He is ultimately responsible and he gave a commitment on the floor of the Dáil that night that students' grants would be paid before Christmas. However, this week we heard a number of them will be paid after Christmas. In that respect, I have some concerns regarding the Minister. I have no doubt he has the best of intentions but I hope he has got into practice and that he will not return here after a period and hold up his hands and say he got it wrong in this regard because of a lack of consultation and the lack of an implementation plan. He has said the implementation of the junior cycle reform will be phased in over eight years, but we believe that may be too long a period. Young students who find it difficult to make the change from primary school to secondary school will also have to cope with the two cycles for a period of years. How will that work?
As in the case of any initiative, it is important this one is adequately resourced. The Minister said he was confident he would have the resources to ensure this would be implemented. He was also confident when he made a pledge to the third level students of Ireland that he would have the resources to ensure there would be no increase in student fees. However, that confidence abated when he got into power. I hope he will have the necessary resources to implement the junior certificate cycle, which I compliment, welcome and support. I hope, based on his commitment on the floor of the Dáil, that the necessary resources will be made available to ensure the teaching staff are consulted, adequately trained and equipped to implement the new junior cycle to ensure the students of Ireland have what will be a new junior certificate cycle as we move forward.

The next two speakers are Deputies Lyons and Spring. I call Deputy Spring.

Mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí. I am a greater believer that children should be given the confidence to go forward and prosper, to prepare them for life and not just for examinations. That is one of the reasons I am pleased to acknowledge that the Minister is doing the correct thing in adjusting how the junior cycle will work. It is worth noting that many speakers from the non-Government parties acknowledged this has been a good day. The last time the junior cycle was changed was in 1992 when the junior certificate was introduced to replace the intermediate certificate.

There are five subjects I would like to see incorporated into the new junior certificate cycle, and I advocated the Departments of Education and Skills and Health on that front. They are, namely, mental health and awareness, physical fitness, philosophy, computer coding and grow-it-your-own and agriculture within one subject.

First and foremost among these is mental awareness and health. I attended the Young Scientist exhibition in the RDS last year at which many schools advocated awareness of mental health, including two, in particular, from my county of Kerry, Coláiste na Sceilge and Mounthawk Mercy School in Tralee. They said that students were not aware of how to help themselves when they found they were in a state that needed to be addressed. They also said that they did not know where they could get help and said they were not in a comfortable position to talk to their peers. These are three things that could be easily addressed and one of them blends into the other.

One of ways to address them is physical fitness for students. I have been lucky enough to talk to parliamentarians throughout the continents during the past 20 months, including on the subject of how physical fitness as opposed to physical education is administered. I am a great believer in what gets measured gets done. We look upon the core principles of numeracy and literacy as being skills that have to be disciplined, measured and upon which one can build. However, it is also better for a person's confidence that they are able to acknowledge that they need to look after their mental health, and they can do this by the easy example of going for a walk. It releases serotonin. If one is involved in a team sport, one is part of a group. One is more acceptable in an environment which will give one more confidence to get on with the skill set that is needed for the modern world.

We need to look at areas such as communication, creativity, managing information, self-management and working with others. These are the soft skills that are imperative for us to become a dynamic society as well as dynamic economy. In regard to philosophy, I am great believer in politics, but I do not believe in politics just because one is told what to do.

Everyone should develop his or her own ideology. The French have the best model in the world, which examines societies in general and the atmosphere of what they are trying to create, and people try to influence political parties on the basis of their own ideologies. People have something they stand for rather than seeking to be led. Bowing to consensus is not the way forward and it is okay to be an individual.

Computer coding is an area in which we are proficient like no other after college. However there is a skill set deficiency in schools. If people are this way inclined, computer coding is the new mathematics and it can be incorporated into the soft skills. People may also wish to learn about food. A primary school teacher recently told me when some children were asked where milk came from, the overwhelming response was the shop. We have lost a little knowledge about milking the old cow. Agriculture also needs to be part of this. Having spoken to Respond! I like the idea of addressing soft skills on a piecemeal basis in various areas, such as teaching agriculture in rural areas. In houses and areas of lower income, mental health issues are bigger and this is acknowledged by Respond!. Schools in areas with lower income need to be in a position to self-help and tell people what agencies exist. They also need to acknowledge there is a way to improve this in the junior cycle. The same goes for fitness and obesity.

I will not take up any more time because Deputy Lyons knows more about education than I do. I am very encouraged by the Minister, one of the great philosophers in Irish politics, who is looking at improving people's lives as opposed to their education.

It is such a pity that due to our overwhelming majority, those of us in government get so little time to speak, particularly when one wants to contribute to what one believes is a very meaningful debate. I wish to paint a picture to illustrate my contribution to the debate on junior cycle reform. Like other speakers I am a secondary school teacher and my picture starts in 1998 at my interview for the H.Dip. course. One of the lecturers who interviewed me asked what skills I would bring to the classroom, and because I was very excited about them I said I would love to bring the use of television and radio into my teaching. I got onto the course and spent a full year studying the concept, including sociology, philosophy and psychology of learning, teaching methodologies, active learning methodologies, the meaning of curriculum and assessment, classroom management and how to make a child or a person learn.

One leaves the course enthusiastic, wanting to deliver all of the excitement one had about the course so one can be part of an education system and, in one's little mind, transform the world starting with the little people in front of one. Soon after gaining a place in a school, the system, and I use the word "system" to conceptualise something we cannot picture, takes away all the enthusiasm as one realises most learning takes place behind a desk in a seat through the medium of teacher talk supplemented by books and copies. These days we have interactive white boards, but the interaction is between the teacher and the white board with the students looking on as passive learners.

One remembers one's H.Dip. days and constantly looks for ways to include active learning methodologies, but the system does not allow for it. One tries one's best. I remember using television, and getting students to pretend to be reporters when speaking about the impact of a volcano and describing its effects. This is a much more practical way of learning than the teacher sitting there pointing at a picture in the book telling students what a volcano does. The current system does not allow one to engage with active learning methodologies, which are the real way we learn. I only know how to work in Leinster House after having spent 18 months working here. I could have read the big book they gave us, but I still would not understand. The reason the current education system does not allow us to use active learning methodologies is because of the junior certificate examination. Three years after starting school, during the month of June students are asked to write everything they can remember. They are not asked to write about the team work they experienced when making a video, creative thinking or other aspects which bring learning to life.

For those who understand teaching, what I am speaking about is the curriculum. The syllabus for any subject contains a curriculum, but then one must bring life to the subject. Unfortunately, the assessment process we use to measure the subject does not measure the life instilled in one and the learning one takes on board. Due to the fact the syllabus is overloaded, and we know we will never get through the chunky books, teachers cut corners. We realise we cannot deliver on active learning methodologies every day because of the constraints of our work overload. We try to do the best for the young people in front of us, so we go back to the didactic approach to teaching whereby the students listen while the teacher talks, and they try to remember as much as they can and hopefully get a good result on the day, which they do. One writer described this process as the assessment tail wagging the curriculum dog. The assessment rather than the curriculum tells us how to teach, as we teach according to what will be asked in the assessment. This is not independent learning.

This is my picture of the current junior cycle. The reform of the junior cycle will address the imbalance between curriculum and assessment and ensure the curriculum plays an invaluable role in the assessment process and that what is assessed is based on what is taught so it is worthwhile for a teacher to get the students out of their seats to understand the process. Reforming the junior cycle is about saying goodbye to the days of rote learning and teachers having to second-guess what will come up in the exam, hoping the students will do their best and cutting corners in what is an overloaded syllabus in most subjects. It is also about embracing a new process which will see the balance between curriculum and assessment redrawn and bringing life into learning. The six key skills underpinning the reform are fantastic and if they are assessed properly they will lead to a society where young people grow up equipped with the skills to engage and adapt where necessary to the challenges life brings to every one of us.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what is an exceptionally important issue. Any proposals by Government to alter aspects of the education system can have far-reaching effects, not only for the individuals concerned but also for society at large. This is because education at the level of the individual has the power to expand or contract a person's imagination. At the societal level, a country's education system is perhaps one of the most important mechanisms by which systems of governance, compliance and conformity are produced.

More importantly education is a key mechanism through which life chances are produced and determined. One's level of educational attainment is a key factor in determining future well-being in terms of employment, income, health, housing and access to life chances. It is now an accepted fact that education systems reproduce societal norms in terms of power, socioeconomic status, and the allocation of privilege and poverty. Therefore, if we are to embark on the task of modernising the Irish education system, which essentially is what reform of the junior cycle is all about, we must first address the question of what we hope to achieve by such reform.

The Government, through the Department of Education and Skills, has set out its stall on this matter. In its mission statement, the Department clearly states the aim of the proposed changes to the junior cycle is to enable learners achieve their full potential and contribute to Ireland's economic, social and cultural development.

Sinn Féin is generally supportive of the proposed measures and we welcome reform of the junior cycle which, in our view, is long overdue.

Moreover, we endorse the Department's mission statement and we share its view that education must primarily be about two connected and interlocking aims. These are the development of a person's creative and intellectual potential according to his or her ability and the development of Ireland's capacity in economic, social and cultural terms. These are laudable aims. However, it must be stated at the outset that both of these aspirations are contingent upon important issues to do with opportunity, structures, imagination and vision. For example, with regard to opportunity, it is now an accepted fact that early intervention plays a crucial role in determining pupil performance at first and second levels. It goes without saying that what happens at second level has considerable influence on whether or not students go on to third level and, indeed, on their subsequent ability to progress and compete in that arena.

With regard to structures, it is also acknowledged internationally that different structures will produce different outcomes. For example, if an education system is conservative and hierarchical in nature, then it is almost certain that it will reproduce the same values, hierarchies, exclusions and world view that are embedded within the original system. However, creating an education system that is flexible, open, liberal and based on values such as social solidarity, democracy, equality and fairness, and not only about economic development, although this is important too, requires imagination and vision.

If we see our schools as the workshops in which citizens and society are moulded and shaped then it is incumbent upon us to implement reforms which will go some way to addressing the deficiencies which are clearly evident in the current system. Thus, while Sinn Féin supports reform of the junior cycle, we have a number of key concerns which must be addressed if any such reform is to produce meaningful and successful outcomes. For example, we are extremely concerned by the alarming drop in Ireland's global ranking in the areas of literacy and numeracy. Evidence of this is found in the fact that in the ten-year period from the late 1990s, the country's ranking fell from 15th to 25th in mathematics and from fifth place to 17th in reading. There are many reasons for this dramatic drop in standards. These include funding, access to resources, a drop in standards in teacher training colleges, over generous marking in third level institutions, and the lack of rigorous and stringent oversight of acceptable standards of education at second and third levels. Given this context of an alarming drop in standards, any proposals for reform of the junior cycle must take on board and grapple with this reality. It is simply not good enough to turn a blind eye to this and to attempt to implement certain reforms while at the same time ignoring this significant issue.

Children who cannot read or add are at a serious disadvantage in terms of their personal development but also in terms of their ability to access life chances at some time in the future. Teachers with limited literacy and numeracy skills cannot pass on to their students knowledge that they themselves do not possess. With this in mind, Sinn Féin would argue strongly that any reform of the junior cycle must take this situation into account. Proposals for reform must be part of an overall strategy that has at its core a central focus on improving standards across the entire system in terms of literacy and numeracy.

Clearly the austerity measures which are currently being pursued by the Government work against any initiatives that would attempt to improve standards. Simply put, one cannot cut educational budgets, resources to disadvantaged children, funding to schools, special needs teachers, resource teachers etc., and expect mere paper reforms to produce an education system that is fit for purpose in a modern state.

It is, nonetheless, important to acknowledge that the document, Towards A Framework for Junior Cycle, contains many valuable suggestions that in and of themselves go some way to dramatically improving the junior certificate cycle.

With regard to the finer details of the proposals, Sinn Féin welcomes the move away from terminal examination to continuous assessment. This is in keeping with international best practice and, hopefully, will enhance student experience and support learning and enhanced achievements for students.

While we welcome references to the Finnish education model we nonetheless caution against an over reliance on this system of education. Ireland is not Finland in terms of our dominant value system, political outlook and institutional history. For example, we have no history of entrenched liberalism within the State apparatus, particularly when it comes to social policy. Moreover, we also lack at this juncture a shared vision of what Irish society, now and in the future, should look like in terms of social and economic organisation.

If any reform is to be successful, Sinn Féin would urge the Minister and his Department to engage with the teacher's unions and with other relevant stake holders.

We also ask the Minister to think again about any plans to change the status of history and geography at second level. These are key subjects that deserve to maintain their core status. After all, if we as a people do not understand our past, how are we ever expected to make sense of our current situation or to plan for the future? Likewise, if we have no sense of place or no understanding of where we fit in to a globalised world, then our imaginations and world view become increasingly myopic and insular.

Sinn Féin welcomes the Minister's proposals. However, we urge him to give serious consideration to the concerns I have outlined.

Deputy Ó Ríordáin is sharing time with Deputy Conaghan.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter.

I congratulate the Minister for his initiative. We need to be radical when it comes to education. Far too often, there has been a sense of "Sure, it is grand". It is important that we do this.

There is a considerable gap between the political system and the staffroom and that gap is often filled with ill-informed or ill-advised media comment about what teachers do and their pay structures and responsibilities. In any reform package, it is impossible to achieve anything in education without bringing teachers with us. That disconnect, which I see far too often between the staffroom and the political system, is something of which we must be wary and which we must address. We must empower teachers to implement the reform packages that we propose.

It is so important to bring teachers and students with us. I undertook a tour of my constituency and spoke to students in Manor House in Raheny, in Holy Faith, Clontarf and in Holy Faith, Killester, in Chanel College in Coolock, in Dominican College, Drumcondra and in Mount Temple. I am quite sure when I was speaking to them they were not sure whether I would address their concerns in Leinster House, but I am doing so. All those students, to whom I wanted to speak because they were the ones who most recently sat the junior certificate, were supportive of the 60:40 balance but had concerns about the restricted subject choice which was the original proposal. The latter has been addressed by the Minister, and I welcome that.

I also spoke to a number of schools' staff about it and I am slightly alarmed about the disconnect between the staffroom and the political system. When I talked to staff about how they feel, I heard they feel completely under appreciated. They feel the sense of disconnection, a sense of disempowerment and a sense of not being appreciated for the hard work they do. They are asked to drive and be empowered by reform packages that come along, and yet they feel that their vital role in education is not being appreciated. I asked why they feel this. Sometimes they blame the Department, but they also blame society and media comment.

I make this appeal to those who are concerned about education, to parents, students and anybody who feels strongly about the power of learning, and learning for its own sake which is at the core of the new reform package, that one cannot ask a teacher to engage in this process if one strips away the goodwill on which every school runs.

Anybody who knows anything about education knows that schools run on goodwill. If one interferes with that sense of goodwill, it effectively interferes with a lot.

Staff have told me of their concerns about tampering with the relationship they cherish as advocates for their students. The new assessment model is a concern for them. They are also concerned about a potential dumbing down of the junior certificate. I do not agree with their sentiments but I do know their sentiments are real. If they feel the new assessment model will change the vital relationship they have with their students as advocates for students' advancement, and if they feel there is a potential dumbing down of certain subjects, including history and geography, we have a body of work to do. We cannot ask teachers to engage in this process, take on the work of reforming the junior certificate, change the model of education in schools and bring in short courses if they feel at the outset that there is a disconnect.

I ask the Minister and the Department to re-engage with the secondary school system by whatever means necessary. Teachers' unions and the Government have a responsibility for this matter. I believe there is cross-party support in this House for what the Minister is trying to achieve. We have a responsibility to encourage and empower teachers to bring these issues forward. If one starts off with a belief that this is not achievable, however, one will not believe in it. We cannot ask anybody to implement something they do not fundamentally believe in. I believe in what the Minister is doing and I know the Minister and the Government believe in it also. Across this House, people are accepting the bona fides of what the Government is trying to do on this matter. We cannot expect teachers to believe in it if we do not address their concerns, but we will do so. We must take those concerns seriously and work with teachers to reform the junior certificate for the benefit of students, which is at the core of what we are trying to achieve.

I am glad of this opportunity to comment on the proposed innovation in the junior cycle curriculum. Reform of the junior cycle will provide for new learning experiences, encounters and formats. The proposed innovations will give teachers flexibility and space to do these things. When teachers can be more creative and experimental, students will benefit from that sort of activity which is built into the proposed reforms.

Adopting these new approaches will allow teachers to shed some of the more traditional practices that have become rather hackneyed, tired and unproductive, such as over reliance on memorising facts. Being occupied with what will come up in the examination is also a part of the constraints on learning that are so typical of the older traditional systems of practice.

The proposed changes will serve young people better as they prepare for a future where they will continue to be learners, citizens, employees and employers. As the Minister has suggested, the proposed innovation will better prepare young people for adult life.

Overall, the proposed reforms are positive and welcome. Nonetheless, I have some slight criticisms of them. For example, the cover of the booklet shows pictures of young people doing science, home economics, biology field-work and physical education. However, there is no picture of a young person engaging in the arts, playing a musical instrument, dancing or doing drama or mime. Up to one third of the primary school curriculum comprises dance, drama, mime, music and visual arts, but the provision of that element of the curriculum is haphazard. In that context, I thought the Minister would have considered creative, interesting and engaging ways of addressing those deficits in the primary school curriculum. There is an opportunity to insert the arts into the junior school curriculum. The arts are the strongest medium for self discovery and creativity, which is a requirement for all those growing up in the modern world.

Another criticism is the lack of thinking about learning environments. Teachers should be encouraged and facilitated to break out of the classroom into other learning environments, including the outdoors. I cite an example from Inchicore and Kilmainham with which I am most familiar. Large numbers of third level students come to the area lying between the rivers Liffey and Camac, because between the confluence of both rivers one instantly understands how topography and physical landscape shapes the pattern of human settlement. In the classroom, however, students learn it from a book. The contrast is so striking between old and new modes of learning. The Minister should have been far more daring in encouraging teachers to break out of the classroom and look at the interesting, productive potential of the outdoors, whether for studying botany or other subjects. Teachers are not precluded from doing that, but there should be overt statements outlining the value of these new learning environments that would concur so well with the suggestions for new ways of learning.

New modes of learning require new modes of assessment and certification. I urge the introduction of what is referred to as cross-moderation. Over the last 20 years, there are many good examples where City of Dublin VEC and the Department of Education and Skills, in conjunction with Trinity College, have introduced a range of new modes of assessment for course work and different learning categories similar to what the Minister is proposing. That method should allow tried and tested forms of assessment. It would guarantee objectivity and remove bias and favouritism. Some teachers see the latter issues as barriers to implementing these changes.

Having made those criticisms, I am encouraged by what the Minister is doing. We are in Donogh O'Malley territory with this Minister. I urge him to pay some attention to what we are saying, as I know he will. I encourage him in his endeavours.

I too am pleased to be able to say a few words on the motion. I have listened to other speakers in this intelligent debate which is badly needed. I want to see the new junior certificate succeed, but I am concerned about the lack of detail in the Minister's plan. I am also concerned that it will take so long, eight years, before it is fully in place. I must make a disclosure in this respect. I have a cailín óg in junior certificate class and a cailín óg eile in national school. Both of them will be finished the junior certificate before these meaningful changes take place. It is simply too long to wait for reform.

I salute the educational practitioners, including the sisters, brothers and private schools. In my area, schools were established with humility and few funds. They provided education in leaner times, back in the 1960s and 1970s, when they did not have funding.

Then we entered the boom, when plenty of funding was secured for everything else. I salute the career guidance counsellors for the amount of work they do. I welcome one such person to the Gallery, a good friend and cara liom ó Chluain Meala, Mr. Gerry Flynn. I welcome him and thank him and all his colleagues nationwide for the vital work they have done.

While I do not wish to be political on this issue, I visited a national school last week in Annacarty, County Tipperary and refer to the cuts and austerity that have been imposed by the Department of Education and Skills, with the wiping away of an entire career guidance system and the undermining of extracurricular activities and other supports for the teachers themselves. Morale is very low and it will be necessary to bring the teachers with us in this regard, because they are vital partners, as are the career guidance counsellors and the whole school community from the board of management down to the pupils. Obviously, the pupil must come first but we must embrace them all. However, the cuts and knocks there are having a huge impact and I appeal to the Minister to listen on this issue. As previous speakers have noted, he already has been obliged to apologise over what happened regarding the DEIS cuts. He stated he was on a learning curve and was out of touch and one hopes he is now back in touch. He then allowed the VECs to be amalgamated and the grant awarding bodies and councils to be merged into SUSI. That has been another fine disaster and anyone with any commonsense should have known that the work of 66 or 67 awarding bodies could not have been done better by a single VEC here in Dublin. Consequently, awful trauma and anguish has been inflicted on students and families and it simply is unfair. Moreover, while the Minister has stated he is confident he has and will have the funds in place to deal with this, I do not believe this to be the case because money is awfully scarce. In this context, I note that young teachers now are being singled out as they start out and a kind of apartheid is being built into schools, whereby new entrants cannot get the same pay scales and this simply is wrong. Good morale is required in classrooms. I have been on boards of management for both primary and secondary schools and above all else, one needs morale. Consequently, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this issue.

I certainly seek change to the curriculum and practical subjects must be dealt with. I see great scope for the entire area of mental health to be examined and dealt with and unless this is done, a crisis is approaching. I refer to the issue of self-esteem and reiterate that while pupils naturally could turn to their teachers, the only person in whom they could confide were their career guidance counsellors, such as Mr. Flynn and his colleagues throughout the country. Pupils could do so in the privacy of the counsellors' rooms while confident in the knowledge that it was completely private, genuine and respectful and that there was an interest in the holistic education and well-being of the students concerned. On the issue of cyberbullying, the trauma and sad tragedies are evident as they arise every so often. While they are too awful to describe, Members must deal with this issue. Having children of all ages, I am familiar with the media, the invasion of space and privacy and the damage that can be done with such texts, e-mails, Facebook entries and the other tools of modern technology.

In addition, Members also must embrace a wider curriculum that will deal with ár dúchas, our heritage, our culture and the arts of all kinds. Education must be changed to make it more interesting, more stimulating and more invigorating to allow the students to reach their full potential that Members know they possess and are entitled to achieve. If one takes the example of Irish dancing, I know of a dancing teacher who is trying to get into schools to teach dancing as a private extracurricular activity but she is unable to so do because there are all kinds of blockages and reasons pertaining to insurance or whatever. While change must be embraced, it cannot and must not take eight years because Members have waited for a long time and eight years is far too long.

I note the TUI, the INTO and other bodies expressed huge concern and surprise when the Minister announced this sea-change. They want to be involved and want to be partners in tandem with the Minister but it cannot simply be by diktat. There must be proper, meaningful consultation in the widest sense, in that it must extend back to the parents, families, communities, boards of management, parents' councils and everyone else involved.

Earlier, I mentioned VECs and the work they have done, as well as the brothers and sisters who taught in the different schools in which I was involved. If the Ceann Comhairle will allow me, I wish to correct something that may have been stated in another debate about a situation concerning VECs and the Department. It is a situation in which a company in my constituency has asked me to raise the issue here. The company is called the Institute of Professional Training, trading as Kadenza Consultancies Limited. It is a properly constituted, tax-compliant entity, professionally accredited and entitled to go about its business in a fair and competitive manner. Unfortunately, however, there has been and continues to be undue and disproportionate harassment of, attention to and hindrance of the company's legitimate business pursuits from different Departments and sub-Departments, most notably the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Deputy, this debate is on the framework for the junior cycle.

I know that but it is very important that one rectifies the mistakes of the past before moving forward and I beg the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence as I have almost concluded.

Other Departments and sub-Departments involved include the Department of Education and Skills and Kerry County Council. Members need to be informed by the Department of the reason people in these positions are discriminating against legitimate companies which are offering training-----

Sorry Deputy, I must bring you back.

No, they are part of the VEC and there are issues in this regard.

This has nothing to do with the framework for junior cycle.

Yes, but to a large extent, the junior cycle will take place within VECs. I acknowledge the VECs will be gone on foot of the enactment of the new education legislation but I refer to the successor bodies to the VECs. While I commend them on what they did, where mistakes are made and wrongdoing takes place, it must be righted.

I look forward to debating the relevant legislation and I hope the Minister and the Aire Stáit freisin will listen to the honest views of the people, will consult widely and will bring the whole school community with them. Moreover, in the forthcoming budget, they should revisit and review the damage that has been done on foot of the attack involving the removal of career guidance, because that service is a basic and integral part of a school's education system. As I stated, it is linked to issues such as cyberbullying and so on, as the career guidance counsellor is the one person who knows the students intimately and knows their situations, backgrounds and difficulties. As I stated, the students are happy, made at ease and encouraged by career guidance teachers. That is the most important part of it and one cannot go forward unless the foundations are right and unless the basic requirements are in place and working properly.

I thank the House for giving me this opportunity to discuss the issues arising from the report on the framework for junior cycle. I appreciate the input from Members on all sides of the House. This is a significant change for our education system, our teachers and principals and most importantly, our young people. For the reasons outlined, I believe the proposed changes are necessary, appropriate and timely. This is not a rushed change and is not a cost saving measure. It is about changing the way in which learning happens in our schools. It is about providing a framework with the principles, skills and statements of learning, building on from learning in the primary schools. This framework will be implemented across all schools. Moreover, there is a flexibility available within the framework that will give individual schools greater autonomy to meet the needs of their students. Existing subjects will be retained, including history and geography. It is about listening to students who have long been calling for such a change. I acknowledge there will be challenges in implementation and Deputies speaking today have raised some of them. While I do not wish to minimise the potential difficulties, I know this change is necessary and must happen. I reiterate that necessary funds will be made available to support this change and that this is not a cost-cutting exercise.

I am heartened by the support of parents and students. I note industry sources also have welcomed the change and IBEC commented "If done right, this could prove to be the most important education reform of recent years". It presents a real opportunity to move away from the dominance of rote learning and support the development of critical thinking. Business needs employees with the capacity to analyse, communicate, be creative, manage information and work with others. The new curriculum should provide an opportunity to develop such attributes and skills from an early age.

This is an important change and is one that is supported fully by research. I realise that teacher unions are concerned about some aspects of the change and their worries have been raised by some Deputies in this Chamber today. I reassure Members that I believe this change will liberate teachers from the straitjacket which is the current junior certificate. The junior certificate is no longer a high-stakes examination and treating it as such has had a profoundly negative backlash effect on teaching and learning. We simply cannot allow this to continue. Some reference has been made to the position in England, where the baccalaureate is to be introduced. The Irish education system is not a mirror image of the English system.

The positions are quite different. The GCSE is designed as a terminal school examination for many students and in the United Kingdom students must choose after completing the GCSE to follow either a vocational or academic route. Our students progress to a common senior cycle, with approximately 90% of Irish students remaining in school until the end of the senior cycle.

There has been criticism from some that the change is taking too long. The process has taken a long time but this is a deliberate policy decision as doing it right requires thinking carefully about implementation. We also need to structure implementation in a way that is commensurate with capacity in the system to cope with change; we should be aware that this is a big change for all the stakeholders in education, including students, parents, teachers, school management and society as a whole. It is vital that we get this right.

Schools and their teachers will have the support of the junior cycle continuing professional development team, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and the State Examination Commission as we transition from the current system to implementation of the framework. Consultation will be a significant part of implementation and the Department of Education and Skills will consult with key partners throughout the phased implementation period. The evidence tells us this change is necessary and we need to get to work as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 3.47 p.m. and resumed at 3.53 p.m.
Top
Share