On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Ms Margaret Kelly, principal officer, qualifications, curriculum and assessment policy unit of the Department of Education and Science, and Ms Doreen McMorris, assistant chief inspector. I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact while the members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on Ms McMorris to make the presentation on behalf of the Department of Education and Science.
School Curriculum: Presentation.
Ms Doreen McMorris
On behalf of the Department of Education and Science, I welcome this opportunity to discuss with the committee issues around science and mathematics education at second level, with particular focus on the senior cycle. My presentation will attempt to give an overview of the current situation in these two areas and highlight the issues that arise, as well as the efforts under way to address them.
I will begin with the primary school curriculum. Science was introduced to all primary schools as part of the revised primary school curriculum in September 2003. The emphasis placed on the children's development of scientific skills is a distinctive feature of the newly devised science curriculum. It concentrates on direct experience of objects and events in areas chosen for their particular relevance to children's lives. Hence, the topics chosen include living things, the environment and its care and so on. The "design and make" element of the curriculum is intended to enable children to develop an understanding of technological processes.
The revised maths curriculum was also introduced as part of the primary curriculum. Its key feature is the development of children's skills based on real life issues. Hence, from an early age, children now focus on prediction and estimation skills, as well as learning to manipulate objects, particularly in terms of numbers and other day to day areas.
In the academic year 2003-04, the inspectorate carried out an evaluation of the implementation of the primary curriculum. It involved a sample of 86 primary schools and focused on mathematics as one of three subjects. It found that teachers had embraced the new approaches to teaching and that, in two thirds of classrooms, children were actively engaged in learning mathematics. This was a welcome result because this was an area in which the key change in mathematics was concentrated. However, the evaluation also found an over-reliance in many schools on the use of a single textbook and that the predominance of "teacher talk" still existed, along with the traditional didactic approaches that tend to be characteristic of our system. Moreover, there were some deficiencies in terms of whole-school planning as far as mathematics was concerned. Hence, there is scope for improvement in primary mathematics and its implementation.
With respect to science and mathematics in the second level curriculum, members will be aware that science is optional in the junior cycle and approximately 89% of students study the subject. This has been the pattern for the past 15 years. Five subjects are offered in the senior cycle, namely, physics, chemistry, biology, agricultural science and the combined subject of physics-chemistry. As for participation rates, approximately 50% of students study biology, 15% study physics and 14% study chemistry. Traditionally, the agricultural science and combined physics-chemistry courses have attracted considerably lower numbers of students, in the region of 6% and almost 2%, respectively. These figures are drawn from data from the pupil database for last year and relate to participation in schools, rather than to examination uptake. We feel these data are a more accurate reflection of actual participation in schools.
With regard to mathematics, almost all post-primary students study mathematics. It is available at three levels, namely, ordinary, foundation and higher level. Students of the leaving certificate applied syllabus take a separate course called mathematical applications. A revised syllabus for junior certificate mathematics was introduced and examined for the first time in 2003. The leaving certificate syllabuses in mathematics were introduced in the early 1990s and were first examined in 1994.
The physical sciences initiative was introduced in 1999. It concentrated on issues pertaining to the uptake of physics and chemistry in schools and set out to improve participation rates, as well as the quality of the students' experience. It focused on revising the curricula and providing in-service training for teachers, as well as modernising school science laboratories. Revised syllabuses for physics and chemistry were introduced for first examination in 2002. The revisions involved updating the content of the syllabuses and, in particular, they introduced a strong element known as science, technology and society. This is in keeping with international trends and approximately 30% of those courses now focus on these areas. The revisions set out to make the content more relevant to the everyday lives of students and focused on students' practical work to a greater extent. Prior to the introduction of these syllabuses, the numbers of students taking the physical sciences had declined for the previous 15 years. In the mid-1980s, approximately 20% of students took physics and chemistry. However, by 1999, participation rates had dropped to slightly more than 11% for chemistry and 15.3% in physics. The introduction of the two revised syllabuses brought about small but significant changes in participation rates. While the upward trend in chemistry has been maintained, regrettably and worryingly, the participation rate in physics has started to fall slightly again. In 2004, 14% of the cohort studied chemistry, while 15.1% studied physics, which is a slight drop on the 15.3% figure mentioned earlier. Hence, as far as physics is concerned, there is an issue with the emerging trends. It is particularly disappointing in light of the increase which took place after the revised syllabuses were introduced and this slight decline has emerged in the past few years.
As far as biology is concerned, a revised syllabus was introduced two years later and was first examined in 2004. Prior to its introduction, approximately 51% of the cohort had studied biology. However, by the early 2000s, that figure had fallen back to 42%. The introduction of the revised syllabus has succeeded in increasing participation to 49.7% this year. Hence, the aim of increasing the uptake in biology appears to have been achieved, in so far as we can judge from examination participation figures from last and previous years.
As members are aware, science in the junior cycle consists of one subject which encompasses physics, chemistry and biology. A revised syllabus was introduced in 2003 and will be examined for the first time in June 2006. It introduced a number of innovations, including an increased focus on hands-on practical work for students. Moreover, as far as teaching and learning are concerned, it moves from the didactic approach to a more investigative approach. Another change is that the syllabus is no longer structured along the lines of subject content. Instead, it is described in terms of the learning outcomes expected of the students. A second assessment component was also introduced for the junior certificate examination to reward practical work. Another innovation is the increased focus on science process skills, as opposed to a concentration on scientific knowledge. The revised syllabus's objectives are to increase students' curiosity and interest in the subject, enable them to acquire the knowledge, skills and understanding that will help them to deal with new situations and encourage them to become more involved in an investigative approach, rather than one of learning and reproducing knowledge, to the subject.
All examinations in the science subjects are presented at ordinary and higher level. While all the syllabuses now place a strong emphasis on practical work, assessment of practical work has been conducted only through the medium of written examination papers. One recent step has been to introduce a practical component to junior certificate science, which is a move towards rewarding students for participating in the practical requirements of the syllabus. The second component in science will contribute to 35% of the marks, with 10% going for carrying out mandatory experiments and an additional 25% going for carrying out projects which will be determined by the State Examinations Commission and completed in the third year of their course.
In terms of in-service training for teachers, the Department has supported the introduction of all of the revised syllabi to which I have referred by a comprehensive programme of professional development for teachers. For the leaving certificate physics and chemistry syllabi introduced in 2000, the emphasis was on content, particularly material which was new to the syllabus, for example, particle physics in physics and case studies involving industries in chemistry. There was also an emphasis on teaching methods and new approaches to practical work and everyday applications of the subject, particularly in the science, technology and society element which is a key component of these new syllabi. The physics and chemistry support involved an investment of €2.3 million for the operational costs and an additional €2.2 million for the secondment of teachers and substitution for teachers attending in-service courses. This intensive phase of in-service courses for physics and chemistry ended in 2003 but a reduced form of support is available through the second level support services. Biology was supported in a similar fashion by an intensive programme which cost over €3.1 million. This intensive phase ended in 2004 and is also being supported through the second level support service and specific provision within that service.
The most recent in-service programme was established for junior certificate science. New content is much less of an issue in this programme. The aim of the programme is to support teachers in adopting the new methodologies needed to implement the revised syllabus. Teachers are being supported through it and moving away from the traditional approach to the teaching of science which relies on textbooks and notes and carrying out prescribed experiments. Instead, they are being supported in introducing discussion and open-ended investigation and encouraging critical evaluation skills among students. There is also a strong focus on assessment throughout the year, rather than the terminal examination. Teachers are also being supported in terms of dealing with mixed ability classes, which are becoming more of a feature in our schools. In 2004, a total of 301 training seminars were provided to teachers at a cost of €420,000, 322 such seminars were provided in the following year and 160 seminars will be provided in 2006 as this will bring the intensive phase of support to an end.
The committee is aware that the report of the task force on the physical sciences was presented to the Minister in 2002. The report contained a range of recommendations in six action areas. These proposals were costed in the report and the total cost came to €244 million, in addition to the money already invested in the area. Of that sum, over €63 million would have been a recurring annual cost if it was fully implemented. Progress has been made on approximately two thirds of the recommendations. Progress has been mainly in the area of curricular reform, an area I have discussed. This is accompanied by in-service support for teachers on an intensive basis. There has also been a significant amount of extra resourcing for science, which included a once-off grant of €7 million to primary schools to support science in 2004. There has been an additional per capita grant for students taking the physical sciences at leaving certificate level and capital grants to schools providing the physical sciences for the purchase of ICT and laboratory equipment. A capital grant has also been provided to support the junior certificate science syllabus and €16 million was given to schools for this syllabus in 2004 to purchase resources and update their facilities.
A full review of mathematical education in post-primary schools by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, is well under way. Other measures to increase awareness in the system have been taken. The Discover Science and Engineering programme was launched by the Taoiseach in October 2003 to ensure that a unified approach is taken. This programme, which is managed by Forfás, aims to pull together the various initiatives that have been undertaken, introduce new initiatives and raise interest and awareness in science subjects and careers in the sciences among students, parents, teachers and the wider public. A wide range of activities, such as Science Week, quizzes and competitions have been introduced, and materials are being sent to schools as part of the programme.
Progress has not been made, however, on a number of the task force's recommendations, including the employment of laboratory assistants in schools. The task force estimated that this would cost €18.8 million per year at 2002 costs. Implementing this recommendation would have repercussions across the system in terms of raising the need for similar assistants in other curricular areas with a practical component. In considering this recommendation, it must be noted that while some European countries, notably the United Kingdom, provide laboratory assistants in schools, other countries, such as Finland and Denmark, do not. The second main area in which significant progress has not been made is in the investment in laboratory facilities on the scale recommended by the task force. The task force estimated that implementing this recommendation on the scale it proposed would cost €166 million. As has been noted, €16 million has been provided to support junior certificate science in this regard. The provision and refurbishment of school laboratories is an integral part of the Department's ongoing building programme. However, funding on the scale recommended in the task force is not available.
With regard to mathematics in second level schools, it is well recognised that there is a range of issues surrounding mathematics in post-primary schools that must be addressed. To inform this process, the Minister has asked the NCCA to carry out a review, which is well under way. As members of the committee understand, it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the findings of the review but I will highlight a number of key issues considered to be priorities by the Department.
The first issue is the levels of achievement of students taking ordinary level mathematics in the leaving certificate. In 2005, 12% of students did not achieve grade D or higher. Apart from the implications of this for students going on to third level education, there are serious issues about the competences and attitudes towards mathematics that these students bring with them into their adult lives, having had this experience in the leaving certificate.
The second priority issue is the uptake of higher level mathematics in the leaving certificate. One of the objectives of the review of leaving certificate mathematics which took place in the early 1990s was to increase the uptake of higher level mathematics to 25%. Significant progress has been made in this regard and the figures from 1994 onwards reveal a sudden jump in the uptake of higher level mathematics. The increase has levelled out and remains at just below 19%. In 2005 it was 18.9%, the highest ever. Prior to that date, it was at approximately 18.1%. That the increase has steadied is of concern.
Regarding the level of competence that students acquire during their second level education, there is considerable evidence from international studies, our third level colleges and a number of other sources that there are shortcomings in our students' understanding of mathematics and its concepts. Our students are strong on what is called instrumental understanding, namely, knowing what to do. They are able to memorise and apply mathematical routines and procedures that have been well practised. However, their understanding of why they are doing what they are doing — relational understanding — is an area in which there are weaknesses. The two types of understanding are both necessary and complementary but the second understanding is required in order to be able to internalise what one learns, retain it and apply it in contexts that one has not met previously. This is a real area of concern.
My presentation's final priority is the status of foundation level mathematics. It suffices for me to say that, when foundation level mathematics was introduced, it was done in order to meet the needs of a category of students that were not being met by the higher and ordinary levels. This was a consequence of the increased participation rate in the leaving certificate, as more and more students were coming through but whose needs were not met by the traditional approach to the subject. The intention at the time was that 25% of students would opt for foundation level but this has not happened. Uptake has stayed at approximately 10% to 11% in some years. One reason is that there is a strong disincentive for students to take foundation level mathematics, even though the course might be the most appropriate to their needs. The disincentive arises from the lack of recognition of foundation level mathematics within the CAO system, namely, no points are available for even its high grades. Furthermore, a pass in ordinary level mathematics is a requirement for most third level colleges, even those that do not have a strong mathematical component. The Department has tried to progress this matter but, unfortunately, the third level system has not considered itself to be in a position to give equal status to foundation level students in terms of recognition. I am not suggesting the same points should be given but an allocation of some points for high levels of achievement on this course would be justified. It is a disappointment that this has not happened.
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment's review of mathematics started last autumn, commencing with the launch of a discussion paper and a consultative process. The aim is to map out the direction in which curriculum and assessment for post-primary mathematics should take in the coming years. The discussion paper outlines the issues in great detail. It does not make any recommendations but calls for a root and branch review of mathematics, which we have not had since the early 1960s. It asks that many models explored when the various revisions were carried out be revisited, as the context in which we are operating has changed significantly. It goes as far as stating two levels in the subject might meet the needs of students and the education system as a whole.
The paper warns against a quick fix approach to rectifying the difficulties in mathematics and explains that any major shift in the philosophy underpinning the subject is not a step that could be taken easily or quickly. It reminds us that in the Netherlands where there was a big shift in the philosophy towards realistic mathematics education or real life maths the shift took 25 years to properly implement. A structured approach needed to be taken, beginning in infant classes and teacher education colleges. Working forward from there ensured that the change took root in the system. The paper also points out that there is more to the problem in mathematics than numeracy; it has to do with the relational understanding I referred to earlier, namely, the ability to analyse, communicate complex ideas and apply what one learns in new contexts.
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment also commissioned a study on international trends in post-primary mathematics education which showed that mathematics is now a policy priority in many countries. They are concerned about it as a consequence of both push and pull factors. We share the push factors, those that relate to poor levels of understanding, levels of achievement and inequities in performance among students. The pull factors relate to the knowledge society, namely, ensuring competences are adequate to meet the need of our knowledge economy and society.
The study highlights three areas that help us to understand mathematics in any country and argues that they combine to form a powerful challenge to any type of change. These areas are the whole culture around the curriculum — what is taught and how it is taught — text books and examinations. While we can examine what happens in other countries such as the study's cited example of Japan, it warns against taking any initiatives in teaching approaches or professional development and bringing them from one culture to another without being sure that the cultural backgrounds and needs match appropriately.
The study concludes by citing five significant challenges. First, we must decide what our vision for mathematics education should be. Second, we must examine our approaches to examinations and assessments and address them in terms of change. Third, there are questions about the tension between improving the standards of performance and ensuring they are equitable across the system, namely, we must not get high standards with a cost of other students not performing at all. We must not lose sight of this in any move forward. The professional development of teachers and changes will involve much more than schools in the second level system.
There is no one template for reform. While we can learn from international trends such as the move to real life mathematics, we must work out our own way forward. In March the NCCA will produce a report on its review that will contain proposals for reform. It is envisaged that work will begin on those recommendations shortly afterwards.
The Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA, has been with us since 2000 and we are preparing for its third cycle in 2006. In PISA's examination of science Ireland achieved scores significantly higher than a number of the 29 OECD countries involved, ranking 13th overall. Our performance between 2000, the first cycle, and 2003, the second cycle, did not change substantially. PISA was only a minor domain in those two studies but will be a major domain in 2006. As such, we will know much more about the performance of our science students when the results come through.
In PISA's examination of mathematics our students have performed at the OECD average level, ranking 17th out of the 29 countries. We were significantly ahead of the OECD average in two of the four different domains into which mathematics was divided, at the average in one and behind in the fourth. The average performance of our students did not change between 2000 and 2003. We have more detail about our performance in 2003 than in the other years because in 2003 mathematics was carried as the main domain.
In common with other countries, male students outperform female students in mathematics. That contrasts with junior certificate students where girls outperform boys, which is an interesting point. PISA found our lower performing students performed significantly better than lower performing students in other OECD countries. That lesser level of inequity in our system is considered a strength. However, at the other end of the scale our highest achieving students scored lower than the OECD average.
That was a whistle-stop tour of what is happening across the system in mathematics and science. In common with other countries, we struggle to deal with two major challenges, namely, participation in science and the improvement of standards in mathematics. The challenges to developments in these areas are the long established traditional teaching methods and approaches, societal attitudes and the examination-driven nature of our second level education and its links with third level.
I hope I succeeded in showing committee members that positive developments are taking place, an important one being the introduction of practical assessment at junior cycle. It is important to bear in mind that compared with other European countries, Ireland has a consistently high level of science and technology graduates. The 2005 data from EUROSTAT and Eurydice show Ireland as ranking first in terms of having more than 20 graduates per 1,000 inhabitants in the 20 to 29 year old age group. This gives us some encouragement when we examine European data.
I thank Ms McMorris. We will go to the committee for questions and then return to the officials from the Department.
I thank Ms McMorris for her presentation. It was a thorough and honest breakdown of what is happening. I have a general question on the issue of perception. Students perceive that physics, chemistry and higher level mathematics are more difficult than other subjects and that it is more difficult to obtain a "good honour" in them. Examining the results for 2004, that perception is not true. The proportion of students obtaining A1 and A2 grades in those subjects is far higher than in all subjects except languages such as Japanese where I believe Japanese students take the subject. Students do not opt for these subjects partly because they believe they are more difficult. What plans does the Department have to deal with that issue? It has been happening for years and has not been addressed sufficiently to convince students that those subjects are not more difficult. Perhaps a particular type of student takes those subjects, and the same students take higher level physics, chemistry and mathematics.
I do not know how long ago I investigated this matter, it is a few years ago, but I found the main qualification of the majority of science teachers was biology as distinct from physics or chemistry. What is the breakdown now? Is it still the case that more teachers are qualified in biology than physics or chemistry and, if so, what can be done to address it?
In terms of job opportunities, a person with a background in physics or chemistry can enter companies and earn a better salary than that of a teacher, which attracts people away from teaching those subjects. Perhaps the Department can address this issue.
How many schools is the Department aware of that do not offer higher level physics and chemistry for the leaving certificate? It is a difficulty in some areas that students do science at junior certificate level and then discover that higher level chemistry is not offered in their schools. Students in a rural area who do not have another school to attend are deprived of that option.
The failure rate at ordinary level for science subjects is worrying. It is slightly higher proportionately than in other subjects. Returning to the point that more teachers are qualified in biology, the failure rate for biology is higher than that for physics or chemistry. How will the Department address this issue? In 2005, 18.5% of students failed biology. That is one student in five and is a high rate. How can it be addressed in the short term rather than the long term? Does Ms McMorris believe it correlates with the non-completion rate of students who continue to third level education? We do not have figures for failure rates, but approximately 22% of science students at third level do not complete their degrees. That is higher than the rate for most other disciplines at third level. Does the students' experience at second level have a knock-on effect at third level? Perhaps they are not prepared enough. The points system has an effect, as students may elect to do a course with low points which they should not have chosen in the first place.
It was recently pointed out to me by someone working in the area that the junior certificate science curriculum contains a number of mistakes which have not been corrected, particularly in the area of experiments. I do not know whether Ms McMorris is aware of that fact. Will she verify whether that is the case and whether it has been brought to her attention? It is important that the curriculum is accurate. If Ms McMorris is not aware of the matter, perhaps she can investigate and address it.
How does the mathematics curriculum compare with that of other countries? Ms McMorris stated one cannot simply adopt what is in one country and apply it here. Are there differences in the way mathematics is taught? Is there room in mathematics to place more emphasis on day-to-day matters such as mortgages, interest rates, loan repayments and budgeting? While the disciplines are within the curriculum, it does not always correlate to their application in day-to-day life. Perhaps it belongs in a business curriculum.
I thank Ms McMorris for an extremely detailed and informative presentation from which I learned quite a bit. In the week following the young scientist exhibition, it is important we learn from how good we are at science in Ireland and how much interest there is in such exhibitions among young people and the general public. I attended a science fair in UL a couple of months ago and many families came on a Sunday afternoon to visit the various stands and see what was happening.
It seems there is a dichotomy between interest in the concepts, creativity and investigative sides of science, and studying it for examinations. That poses a challenge. I hope the new junior certificate course is successful in marrying the more exciting and important elements such as research and the drier element of remembering information for examinations. It appears it has responded to some extent. In that context, given the fact they were recently introduced and are being examined for the first time this year, is it too early to assess the effects of the changes in the junior certificate? Is there a renewed interest in science at junior certificate level since the new curriculum was introduced? If there is it gives us hope for the long-term future.
The practical elements of what students do is now assessed and they are awarded a high percentage for their notebooks and practical work. Who assesses this work? One of the arguments teachers have regarding increasing the amount of continuous assessment at leaving certificate level is they feel objectivity is important and it should be assessed from outside the school. Does the new curriculum teach us some lessons with regard to the more general issue of reforming how we assess students and how such assessment trickles down into what students concentrate on and learn?
I wish to raise another issue in which I know the Chairman is interested. The Model Aeronautics Council of Ireland, MACI, is one of a number of groups that approached the Chairman and me in an effort to secure funding. The council and similar organisations have exhibited at science fairs, the Young Scientist Exhibition and so forth. It has also been invited into schools to carry out practical work of a scientific nature. To my knowledge, however, there is no funding available for the council. It is important to broaden access to scientific experiences beyond what can be taught in class by science teachers because there is much scientific expertise available in the broader community. Is there some way that a group such as MACI can access funding?
Several years ago it was argued that many schools could not teach the new science curriculum because they did not have the laboratory facilities. Can the delegation provide an indication of the number of schools that still do not have appropriate facilities for the teaching of the sciences?
Standardised testing of literacy and numeracy will soon be introduced in primary schools. Will such testing only apply to numeracy, given that the delegation has stated that numeracy is not a major problem and that the mathematical issues are beyond numeracy and relate to concepts and so forth? Does the delegation believe standardised testing will help in identifying problems relating to the learning of mathematics, thus allowing us to intervene earlier and give young people a greater understanding of the concepts of mathematics?
The delegation pointed out that boys do better than girls in the PISA tests, while girls do better than boys in the junior certificate. This is very relevant in the context of the proposals to change the methods of assessment. I advocate going even further than the Minister's proposals with regard to leaving certificate reform. Rote learning, which is a major feature of both the junior and leaving certificate examinations, appears to disadvantage boys, in particular, and also girls who think differently or who are not good at memorising information or putting it down on paper within the limited time allowed. I am interested in the views of the delegation on this issue and wonder if anyone has carried out an analysis on why boys do better in PISA tests, while girls do better in the junior certificate examination. Leaving gender out of the equation, why do certain students do well in PISA tests but not in the junior certificate?
My perception is that many of those who are teaching mathematics to younger and less able students at second level do not have a qualification in the subject. Is that the case and does the delegation have any figures relating to this issue? Are there many teachers, for example, teaching first or second year mathematics who do not have any qualifications and is that a factor in terms of explaining the problems with standards? The fact that the leaving certificate curriculum has not changed since 1994 is a also a major issue in terms of standards problems. I the NCCA will make proposals in that regard as soon as it has completed its work.
I welcome the delegation and thank it for its presentation. My question arises from the PISA report. At a previous meeting the point was made that our high achievers were not doing as well as those in other countries. In other words, our top cohort are at a lower level in terms of international comparisons. Members of the committee visited Dublin City University where a specific course is run for high achievers. In science and mathematics answers are either right or wrong and it is difficult to make such subjects easy for everybody because in such circumstances higher achievers are not challenged. There is no reference in the report to applied mathematics, the most difficult area of the subject. The report identifies that Irish students are good at learning by rote, as Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned, but are not so good at relational understanding. Is there a danger, in changing the nature of the course to a more practical one, that we will bring down the level for the high achievers?
Deputy O'Sullivan referred to the differences in achievement between boys and girls. I am also interested in differences in the level of achievement in science and mathematics between public and private schools. Is there any information available on this? Is there a gap, is it growing and what factors are at play? This is an important issue in the context of the current debate about standards.
I thank the delegation for the presentation which is very honest and clear. It highlights exactly where the faults lie and often we do not get that kind of information. It is good to see exactly what is wrong in order to discuss the issues and find solutions.
Are we expecting too much from some of our students? Do we expect them to learn too much when they are at school? How often is this assessed, in terms of the amount of work that must be completed before students leave school? Do we want our science students to be rocket scientists before they leave the education system? I believe students are doing too much and would like to hear our guests' views on this.
In my school there is a very good biology teacher who did great work with his class. Despite this, over half of the students felt they needed extra grinds at weekends in order to cope with the course. They got extra tuition, not because the teacher was bad but because the biology course was so broad. Those who got extra tuition achieved better results in the examination. I make this point not to advocate grinds but to ask whether there is too much in the biology course.
Some subjects are more difficult than others and require more time but are not allocated additional hours in school timetables. The same number of hours is devoted to all subjects. This is illogical because some subjects are obviously more difficult than others. In the past students did not study science at primary level and, therefore, found it very challenging at second level. This changed in 2003 and those in primary level now are introduced to science and have some understanding of the area. Science is like a foreign language and, for many pupils — particularly those not exposed to it at primary level — studying it is like going to a different country. It is totally different from other subjects and that is why many students opt not to study science. I am aware that more than 80% study science at junior certificate level but the gap between junior and leaving certificate science is enormous. Students are told this by brothers, sisters and friends and are advised not to choose science subjects for the leaving certificate because they are too difficult. This is an issue of perception and we are not winning the battle on that front. It is possible to do well in science — it is not that difficult — but students have a different image of the subject.
We must question the way we are teaching some of the science subjects. Certain teachers are not capable of teaching science, which puts great pressure on students. It is worth examining why students in particular schools pick certain subjects. This is often due to the reputations of teachers. Students might not take a course to which they are suited because they have heard stories about certain teachers. It is a great shame when students do not take the best route for them because of what they have heard from others.
With regard to mathematics, the necessity to learn theorems by heart is ludicrous because, in real life, the application of theorems is what is important, while their actual content can be gleaned from books. The same applies if one studies accountancy at university. One is required to learn off various rules and methods but in everyday life, such rules are in books to which accountants refer. If one works in taxation, one has the book at hand and applies it. Why, therefore, do we expect people in education to learn information by heart rather than learn how to use it? That is reflected in our subjects. Some have a great ability to learn facts to pass an exam but they may not understand them. That is where we fail in some subjects and it is more obvious in maths and science than others. I would like the Department's comments on this.
On the pass rates for mathematics, 42% of those doing pass maths achieve a C grade or better. These students are good enough to do honours maths and it is a shame that they do not. They look at the points system and feel an A or B at pass maths is as good as a D or a C in honours. At 15 years of age they, with their parents, systematically work out how to maximise their points not what is best for their education. This is a shame and is the problem with our choices in education.
People use computers in every job. Is there scope to bring computers into education and exams more and allow students to apply their knowledge instead of just learning it off for the sake of it? We feel strongly on the concept of forcing somebody to learn something. Maths is no longer compulsory after junior certificate level but in most schools students are coerced into doing it. That is fine. It would be no problem to make science compulsory at junior certificate level but not to shove it down the students' throats and ask them to become geniuses at it. That is what happens with some subjects. The issue is to encourage people to do something without making them feel they have to do it, and giving them a choice.
Can the Department indicate when the recommendations from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment review of maths teaching at second level will be made public? Concern has been expressed about the new maths model taught in schools. One teacher has described it as abstract and alienating many pupils. Has the Department had any feedback on it? It has been suggested a more practical syllabus would result in more students taking honours maths. Has the Department had that feedback?
The report mentions the difficulty of the cost of laboratory technicians. The pressure on laboratory time due to the increased number of compulsory experiments is the major issue. The officials mentioned €6 million and €166 million was recommended. If we are seriously going to address this it will be down to investment. The report mentions that 322 seminars are planned, 160 for this year. How many teachers are taking up this in-service training?
The report mentions the availability of text books, particularly in the sciences and maths. What is the Department doing about the shortage of books? Has there been any discussion on giving foundation maths, Irish and English status for college entrance? How can we make progress on this? The officials said there was difficulty with many of the colleges. Again, it is down to money but how many schools have we equipped and how many still await equipment? Have all school labs been brought up to standard?
Deputy Andrews talked about private schools and the inequities of the system. It is a bigger issue but children from disadvantaged areas have no access to grinds, summer courses, Saturday morning schools and trips abroad. Have there been any talks about grants for young people from those backgrounds to encourage them to stay on in fifth year? Teachers tell me many children have part-time jobs. Children from well-off backgrounds are not under the same pressure to have part-time jobs.
We talked about the imbalance of young people taking up science and maths. Is part of the problem down to the imbalance in the teaching profession? The Minister is looking at ways of addressing this. Are we sending people to the schools to encourage pupils to get into maths and the sciences? There has been talk about breaking up the exams and having different modules in different years. How is that developing? Will we encourage pupils in this regard?
I welcome Ms McMorris and Ms Kelly and thank them for their enlightening presentation. I particularly compliment Ms McMorris because she has given us evidence that exam results are analysed by the Department. I am not sure that happens for every other subject.
As a secondary teacher, I share the concern at the decline in interest among students in maths and science in the last decade or two. There is conflict in that we all enjoy the benefits of successful scientific research, including the ATM, mobile phone, digital camera and the Internet. While most admit that science is important and interesting the school experience fails to promote science as among the most interesting and important subjects. That perception originates in negative experience in school, particularly at second level. The wonder of young children is captured in the science curricula recently introduced at primary level but this has not happened at secondary level.
There is a huge demand on young people to capture and perceive difficult concepts at a young age. It is most off-putting. We compete with all those other elements of the successful scientific era which are more attractive to young people such as new technology, yet they find it so difficult. I know of one girl who is well able for honours maths, but who feels she needs to devote time to the other subjects and may therefore drop to pass level maths. There are huge demands on young people and that is why so many of the UK colleges like to take on Irish students who have done so much at certain levels. However, we have an alarming failure rate in maths by first year students in our third level colleges. We should be concerned about it, but that experience in school is not a positive one overall due largely to the fact that science teachers do not have personnel to assist them in the classroom.
The laboratory technician or assistant is absolutely crucial. I heard Ms McMorris speaking about the figure of €18.8 million and that consideration would also have to be given to other experimental subjects. I understand that, but science should be experimental and experiential. To have to learn off formulae and sit stationary in a seat for a double class when one is exploring the whole world of science is a contradiction in terms. While teachers have a maximum of 24 students in a laboratory, they need help to set up equipment and to conduct a class in an interesting and exciting manner. That is not possible, however, when they have to set up equipment in their own time, if they are lucky enough to have a break beforehand.
The experience of Nordic countries was mentioned but we are way behind them when it comes to providing the necessary equipment and personnel. Nonetheless, I welcome this year's initiative by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin. As part of the application for the summer work scheme, there was a form for all schools to apply for equipment. That is a most welcome step and I hope it will apply annually. We are way behind, yet we have an exciting curriculum. Digital equipment was provided to all secondary schools for the introduction of the new science curriculum initiative. That equipment, however, is still in the cardboard boxes in which it arrived because we do not have the additional equipment needed to carry out the experiments successfully, which is a shame. We should make that investment. While other experimental subjects are being conducted in schools, science is suffering because we do not have the necessary personnel to assist the teachers concerned.
We cited the example of Scotland which took on specialised teachers in physics and as a result there are three times more pupils taking A level physics there than in England. That in turn produces more physics based graduates at third level in Scotland and throughout Britain given the Scottish experience. Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the importance of having properly qualified teachers and being fair both to teachers and students in specialised areas. Such teachers must be trained and retrained properly in the skills demanded by the new curriculum. We must take such considerations into account and no doubt the Discover Primary Science initiative by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will be of help in that regard. Additional funding of €500,000 was made available this year. While such assistance must begin at primary level, there is a great deficit at second level.
Mathematics is a matter of great concern. As Ms McMorris said, some 19% of students take honours level maths. However, 12% of students failed ordinary level maths in 2005, and 5,000 students took foundation level. We must be aware of these figures because the overall standard of maths for students entering our third level colleges is one of growing concern, particularly in the light of the level of failure in maths for first year students at third level, which unfortunately follows.
I have a question about agricultural science. Until recently — perhaps still, because I am not too familiar with this programme at leaving certificate level — there was an oral examination in agricultural science. My limited experience of it concerned a class of 25 who took agricultural science at leaving certificate level. Perhaps five students were taken out by the inspector on the day and given an oral examination. Was that done to assess the teacher's ability to teach the subject or was it to identify a clear standard within the class? It would be most unfair if all students were judged, assessed and given a grade based on the outcome of a few oral examinations. I would like to hear the officials' comments on that point.
One lesson we could learn from this meeting is that we probably demand too much from our students who must pursue heavy curricula, particular at leaving certificate level. Sometimes it is easier for them to opt out, rather than take on that challenge.
I welcome the delegation and thank its members for their presentation. I would like to ask Ms McMorris a question.
As regards the physical science initiatives we are taking, number one was the syllabi content both in physics and chemistry. It was meant to encourage greater participation and improve in-service facilities. Are the content changes in those two subject areas a response to the needs of industry and third level requirements? Other members have referred to the question of when students transfer from second to third level. If they have not had the experience of basic chemistry and physics at second level, there is no way in which they can participate at third level in a meaningful way. As a result, many of those who enter a science course drop out and change courses later. The statistics demonstrate that is so. Are we over-responding to the needs of industry and those who have been scare-mongering about the decline in science participation, or is it about the demands of third level entry standards? There must be a greater input into having a realistic approach to science.
Traditionally, the Department of Education and Science has supported in-service training on a shoestring budget. We must compare this with the insistence of the previous Minister on the sanctity of the 180-day school year. It is difficult if not physically impossible in certain schools where one or two science teachers would have to be taken out of the school context to attend in-service training for one or two days. The Department must realise that if it is serious about upskilling science teachers through in-service training, including the new methodologies, it must consider introducing a year out for the regeneration of teaching skills in a given area. It cannot be done on the cheap and if we want participation in science we must do it in a professional manner. However, currently it is anything but professional. The approach is haphazard comprising bits and pieces all over the place. It is difficult enough even to get those with the expertise to deliver in-service courses. By and large, they may be third level personnel themselves and their agenda is coming through loud and clear in their presentations. That important matter must be examined.
Deputy English referred to the relevant timetables. A few years ago double points were awarded for participation in honours mathematics. When that disappeared and honours maths was placed on a par with other subjects, there may have been a recognisable fall-off in the level of participation. However, an agency such as the CAO does not even recognise foundation level maths at leaving certificate level. That must be reassessed, as was rightly highlighted. Most recognise that a grade even at foundation level is for many underprivileged students and students with special needs as good as, or on a par with, a grade at higher level. It is terribly unfair. We talked of participation of 25% at foundation level but it is way down. Dare I say it but there is, unfortunately, a stigma associated with doing foundation level maths and the fact it is not recognised by the CAO adds to this. I hope there is a change in that area.
I refer to participation, especially in schools where only four or five students wish to study physics and chemistry. Unless special provision is made, there will be a concentration of physics and chemistry in the larger schools only. Students in smaller schools might be very good physics and chemistry students but they do not get the opportunity of exposure to these subjects. If the Department is serious, it must ensure participation by smaller numbers or provide facilities for two adjoining schools. However, that necessitates other support mechanisms such as transport from one school to another in order that students would not be out of the school for a considerable period. Serious efforts could be made to restore the importance of science, in particular, physics and chemistry. That would be possible if the proper structures were put in place.
I compliment the Department officials on their presentation. In spite of all our failings, I am heartened by the final comments on how we compare at European level. How do we compare with Northern Ireland and England? While we are ahead, how far ahead are we? Important points have been made in regard to where students can avail of grinds. That certainly makes a huge difference. The career guidance teacher can plot out a path for students. Students sometimes decide to do a subject at pass level and to focus on other subjects. From talking to young people, I know they decide what they want to do and know the points they need.
The standard of teachers and teaching has a little to bear on this also. While we welcome the considerable improvements in recent years in schools and the new facilities provided, we will see further developments in both subjects because of the extra funding provided for facilities in schools. Again, I compliment the officials.
That was a fairly detailed discussion. Ms Kelly and Ms McMorris will try to answer some of the questions and shed further light on some of the topics raised by members.
Deputy Enright mentioned the issue of choice and that so many choose to do ordinary level or do not choose to do physics and chemistry because they are making choices across other subjects. That is not only anecdotal information. It also comes from research into CAO choices the expert group on future skills needs undertook. It submitted a questionnaire to many students and did research with them. The Deputy is right about the perception that certain subjects are deemed too hard. In some senses, physics and chemistry are deemed to be difficult subjects as is higher level maths. This difficulty not only relates to the subject matter but to the time involved in doing it. In the feedback to the CAO research, many students made conscious decisions that they did not want to spend that amount of time on a single subject.
Part of the reconfiguration of senior cycle subjects which the NCCA is undertaking as part of its overall programme of reform is looking at the volume of content in subjects as well as trying to embed better core skills such as learning to learn, team work, research, etc. It is also looking at the introduction of second assessment components and more practical forms of assessment, but it is looking at the content issue as part of it.
On the qualifications of teachers, it is true that in the science area the predominant qualification for teachers at junior cycle science is biology but that is not true at senior cycle level. Looking at pages 69 and 73 of the task force report, it concluded that there was not a shortage of qualified teachers for physics and chemistry at senior cycle. That matter is being kept under ongoing review. Our teacher education unit has very close links with the universities to ensure the subject supply in terms of intake into the higher diploma in education will meet our needs in the future.
A question was asked about the Model Aeronautics Council of Ireland and funding. Our priority funding is given to the capital investment, the teacher in-service and the work of the support services in development of resource materials and advice to schools. We do not normally pay organisations to make school visits. However, that is part of the work the Discover Science initiative does. One will see examples such as the DCU science bus, industry visits to schools, big events in Sligo and Waterford Institutes of Technology and initiatives by the colleges in the Cork area. It funds many activities which directly link third level colleges and industry with primary and second level schools. As was mentioned, the funding for the Discover Science initiative has increased quite substantially in recent years. That would be the main vehicle for a possible source of funding. The initiative is co-ordinated by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment but the Department of Education and Science participates in it. Much of the work is delivered through the educational institutions.
The NCCA has produced research on gender and achievement in the junior and leaving certificates in which it highlighted much earlier international research which shows that females perform less well than males when the exam is novel while males are better risk takers. It also highlighted that the use of tiered entry systems, such as when there are three levels in mathematics, can interact with gender and the international evidence suggests more boys than girls can be entered into the lower tiers for behavioural rather than attainment reasons. There is also some UK research to suggest speed, pressure and competition in higher mathematics classes cause more anxiety and conflict among girls than among boys. Then there is the issue of the laddish culture and the level of application across the sexes to issues like study, which vary, and the later maturation of boys. There are many gender issues that impact on performance.
We do not have data here on attainment levels in examinations across VEC, public and private schools but the work that is done under the ESRI school leaver surveys show consistently that not only is participation in education influenced by socio-economic status, but so also is attainment in education influenced strongly by socio-economic status, and particularly by the occupation and education levels of the mother. It is interesting that the most recent retention reports been produced by the Department show improvements in the VEC retention rates over earlier years.
On the issue of paying grants to poorer students in order to get grinds or extra tuition, perhaps in mathematics and literacy, under the DEIS social inclusion strategy there is a school completion initiative which gives substantial funds to the most disadvantaged schools. It is given to them on a discretionary basis so they can prioritise how their targets and their school plan will be implemented. Some of that investment goes to summer camps in literacy and numeracy, as well as out of school activities that support learning. That is the main vehicle in terms of possibilities.
On the issue of the double class and science being boring, and doubly boring in a double class, part of the rationale for double classes was that one would get a long run at a more practical focus. That is why they double up the periods. It was to introduce a greater emphasis on practical work and investigative and process skills into the curriculum.
Ms McMorris mentioned a figure of €18.8 million per year for the laboratory assistants and the implications that would have for other areas. The main argument for laboratory assistants is the need for preparing and setting out everything at the start of the class and then clearing up afterwards. In other subjects, particularly, for example, home economics, IT, which is a large area that will impact across all the subjects in schools, and the technology subjects like construction, engineering and technical drawing, the same preparatory and cleaning up issues arise. We have not shut the door on it. It is just that we do not have the money for it. The matter will be kept under review but when one looks at the implications across all the subjects, it will be an enormous bill. It is simply a question of prioritisation at present. There are so many competing needs for funding.
Of the ten recommendations of the task force which have not been implemented, Ms Kelly has stated the door is not closed on that one. In the case of the other nine, are they coming down the road or are there some that they do not agree are useful or feel will not happen? What is the position in their regard?
We are keeping that one under review. The same applies to the capital investment.
We were asked how many schools had inadequate laboratory facilities. When the revised junior certificate science syllabus was presented, there was an outcry that they had not got the money necessary to deliver the programme. We arranged that it would be optional in order that only the schools that had the facilities would deliver and we also provided the €16 million grants scheme. After the first year, the programme became compulsory for everybody except those who got a derogation and only four schools applied for a derogation. All the schools, bar four, are delivering on the practical elements in junior certificate science. That is not to say, of course, that with greater practical emphasis at senior cycle in the future we will not need greater investment.
In some cases classrooms convert into laboratories, which are not modern laboratories. They are scraping by because they want to give the service to students and they will not apply for derogation because that has a bad effect on their schools. Ms Kelly's figure is not a real one with which to work.
My point is that while it may not be the optimum position, all but four schools are delivering.
Overall, we are now in an era of major curricular change. There is the large investment in research and development at third level, there is a great need to strengthen what is taught in schools on the needs of the knowledge society and there is quite rapid change coming through at senior cycle, building on quite rapid change throughout the 1990s in the curricular area. We will continue to seek an ongoing programme of strategic investment in curricular reform in the schools. We have been making the argument strongly that there is no point in investing enormous sums in third level if the supply into third level is not available and skilled appropriately. It is a battle we continue to fight. On the capital front, the level of capital investment in schools is at an all-time high but it is playing catch-up over the lack of investment over a long period.
My question did not relate only to that one of the ten recommendations.
The laboratory assistants and capital investment are the big ones. We have not closed the door. We recognise the need to revisit those and to continue to press for more funding, particularly on the capital front.
Other examples include the recommendation that science should be compulsory at junior cycle. We already have 89% taking science at junior cycle, where it is not compulsory, and we must balance the needs of a particular sector in the knowledge society with the broader societal needs to increase retention rates across the board and to ensure students get a fulfilling experience in education which meets their personal as well as their economic and social needs. There is much research to show that choice is critically important in that regard if one is trying to influence people to stay in school and that one must leave the option to the students in order that they can choose the programmes that best meet their needs, interests and abilities. We have no intention of making it compulsory. That relates to one recommendation.
There was another recommendation about the additional post of responsibility to co-ordinate science across the school. We have a national framework agreed with the partners in education for posts of responsibility which are based on staffing and enrolment levels in the school and there is a menu of tasks that would be required to be carried out by people with those posts of responsibility. After that, how schools organise their posts is a matter for school discretion. We have no plans to pick out the science subjects and declare that science, as opposed to any other area, must have a post of responsibility. That is a decision for the school and the school board of management.
Ms Kelly may submit the other details to the committee.
Ms McMorris
I will try to address some of the questions on which Ms Kelly has not touched.
Deputy Enright raised the question of the perception of mathematics. Her description is accurate in so far as there is much evidence to indicate that students see mathematics and science as demanding more effort and this influences their choices. It is important for us to recognise that societal attitudes also play a part in terms of the perception of subjects. It is acceptable for a person to say he or she was never any good at maths or is not interested in science. That is the equivalent of saying one cannot read or write in an Asian country. It is not socially acceptable to say this. That is one example of how societal attitudes influence children from an early stage. We have been trying to do that, particularly through the changes to mathematics in 1994. A great effort was made to reduce the breadth of the course, without dumbing it down, to make it more accessible and to improve the perception of it. Clearly, much more work needs to be done in this regard.
A number of schools do not offer physics and chemistry because small numbers of students wish to take those courses. However, in the context of school evaluations, we can advise schools on how to use their resources. For example, a group of four students may be taught by the main mathematics teacher to take them through the leaving certificate at the expense of a large ordinary level class. Advice may be provided for the school to consider collaborating with other schools in the town. While this raises other issues, such an arrangement is working well in a number of places and is useful for subjects such as physics and chemistry. School resources are restricted but, through increased collaboration and the provision of advice to schools on how that might happen, the situation is gradually improving. While it does not address the issue fully, choices must be made at the end of the day because resources will always be an issue. We advise schools strongly to carry out needs assessments of their incoming students and, for example, not to provide physics this year because it was provided last year. Through our guidance staff and our reports on guidance, we encourage schools to survey students to ascertain what subject is in most demand for that cohort.
The provision of these subjects in disadvantaged areas was raised. Support to disadvantaged schools through the school completion programme are substantial and schools are encouraged, if needs be, to use the money to provide an additional teacher to service a particular area. If a small group of students in a disadvantaged school is committed to following through on a subject such as this, there is nothing to preclude the school from using this funding to provide part-time hours. This is another way to get around the difficulties raised.
The debate on the failure rate at ordinary level is broad and there are many reasons for this. Some are speculative but examinations are providing evidence that the approach of students has changed over the years. A trend picked up in the marking is that students no longer attempt a question a second time whereas a number of years ago students would try to solve a problem and if they failed, they would cross out their attempt and try again. A pattern has emerged of students giving up more easily. That affects their result, as every attempt a student makes is likely to result in marks. We can only speculate on the reasons for such behaviour but it is an interesting development.
Working part-time is another reason for the high failure rate, as part-time work is more attractive to students in disadvantaged areas. However, research highlights that students do not necessarily engage in part-time work because they have to. Research carried out by Dr. Mark Morgan illustrates that the income earned by many students is not spent dealing with disadvantage in the home but elsewhere. This is a complex area and it is one of the reasons the mathematics review is so important because its purpose is to get behind the speculation and to gather the views of the public to establish the reasons for the poor performance levels.
I am not aware of mistakes in the junior certificate syllabus but the guidelines that issued are considered to have not sufficient detail. Issues have been raised regarding the draft guidelines, which have been published on the website, and the NCCA has undertaken to revisit them. A revised version will be published in the next few weeks to deal with the issues raised through the subject association for teachers of science.
I referred to guidelines for experiments in the practical subjects.
Ms McMorris
I am aware of that and hope the issue will be addressed shortly.
We have a more traditional approach to the mathematics curriculum in comparison to other states. We are more rigorous regarding what is expected from students and our focus on real life scenarios is limited in comparison to other countries. We encourage and support a broad education for all our students. While mathematics is not compulsory, it is effectively so. The demands of third level and so on mean that every student must take the subject because, without it, they cannot go far. Almost all students take mathematics until the end of their post-primary education. In many other countries, students make choices at a much earlier stage through the provision of more academic tracks or a vocational track. For example, in the United Kingdom when students complete the GCSEs they specialise in a few subjects. Those factors set Ireland apart from our countries and they impact on our curricula. Comparing what is done in Ireland with other countries is complex but almost every other country is moving towards problem-based real life mathematics and that is the direction we will have to take. However, the extent to which we go in that direction has still to be worked out and that is where decisions will lie.
Deputy O'Sullivan raised the issue of the assessment of practical work for the junior certificate. Students carry out the work in the school and the teacher signs off that the children did it under their supervision to avoid them doing it outside the school and availing of unapproved help. That material is communicated to the State Examinations Commission and is assessed by the examiner who marks the written paper which makes up the other 65%.
Standardised testing at primary level will help to identify difficulties children are having but such testing is a crude process in so far as it is a measure of a child's performance on a particular day. It is limited in the extent to which it can get beyond basic skills. The Department's approach to this testing is that by making it available to all children at different points in their primary schooling, teaching and learning can benefit and the teacher will know where are the child's weaknesses. The standardised tests are used in many schools to ascertain special needs and various cut off points. Standardised tests will help but they have limitations.
The qualifications of mathematics teachers are also an issue because, unlike the sciences, a person with a degree in business could have a significant background in mathematics and may be competent to teach the subject. At the end of the day, much depends on the individual's personal skills. Mathematics is taken for many degrees and it is difficult to draw a thick black line between those who are qualified to teach the subject and those who are not. The registration council sets high standards for those it registers to teach mathematics but there is a great deal of flexibility at school level and if a teacher has mathematics in his or her degree, the principal may decide he or she is competent to teach the subject. He or she may attend in-service training and so on but it is an area about which it is difficult to be black and white.
The leaving certificate syllabus has not changed since 1994, a long time ago. One of the outcomes of the NCCA review will be a revision of syllabi. Mathematics has been categorised as one of the first group of subjects that will involve a senior cycle review. Work on that will begin soon but I cannot comment on the extent of change because that will result from the review.
Deputy Andrews expressed concern about high achievers. There is evidence from PISA that we are behind in that regard. I take some issue with the suggestion that making the syllabi more accessible might dumb down standards. This is not necessarily the case when one considers what we are demanding by way of the proposed new syllabi. What we are saying in a nutshell is that we want in the new syllabuses, and in the senior cycle, to reduce the amount of content. We hope to reduce the breadth but to increase the depth of understanding in order that it will go from a mile wide and an inch deep, so to speak, to the opposite situation. I take issue with the suggestion of dumbing down. It is a question of increasing the higher order skills and moving from the lower order, reproduction and rote learning and all that goes with it, to understandings that remain with students and are meaningful.
On the question of public and private schools, we must be careful when considering examination results and all the factors that underpin this process by way of the students who attend these schools and so on, because it is a very complex area. In PISA, Ireland appears to have a much lower level of between school differences compared to other countries, which is highlighted as a strength. Private schools would have been part of the survey which involved more than a quarter of schools. These were all rigorously selected by a consortium based in Australia in which we had no hand, act or part. In the most recent PISA report, the differences in achievement between the categories of vocational, secondary and comprehensive schools were more reduced than in the 2000 survey, which is encouraging.
Deputy Naughten referred to the issue of advising students against science subjects and how a child is likely to be told to keep away from science, that it is mad stuff and so on. I can only say we are back to attitudes in society. While it is only part of the problem, it is a significant part. The experiences of those who have gone ahead can influence strongly people still to come. The whole guidance area is very important. In our review of what is happening in regard to guidance, we highlight to guidance counsellors the importance of moving away from the traditional stereotype approach to these subjects to bringing students to a realisation that all the ideas they come to school with may need to be challenged.
The guidance enhancement initiative that involved the allocation of 80 posts in recent years had three objectives. One was to focus on increasing the uptake of the sciences. This was considered successful in terms of the feedback we received. The idea of learning off theorems and so on is something the Department and any educationalist is very much against. We are back again to the whole debate about understanding and broadening out competences from just knowledge into skills and attitudes, which is our overarching objective.
The use of computers in examinations was referred to. Positive steps have been taken in that regard. A couple of weeks ago the Minister announced that leaving certificate technology would be introduced. As members are aware, this is available only to junior certificate students at the moment, but a new course called design and communication graphics would replace the existing technical drawing. One of the key points of the new syllabus is that 40% of the market for students will be a result of practical work done using computer-aided design. This is a positive step into using IT in assessment and having it a requirement of every child who takes the subject, not just the select few. We hope it is just the beginning of a move into that area.
Ms Kelly referred to compulsory subjects. The only subject that is compulsory in senior cycle is Irish. In the case of mathematics, it is because of the outside factors that impact. We have all been getting feedback about mathematics being over-rigorous, alienating and so on. The NCCA's discussion paper is worth reading in that regard because it highlights all of these issues.
On foundation level mathematics, members will be aware that the colleges are independent from the Department. They make up their own minds as to what they will do. The Department had no hand, act or part in the design of the allocation of points for CAO. Neither has the Department any control over the interim requirements colleges put in place. The issue of foundation level courses is very important because it kicks in in two ways. The first issue relates to the points system where a child does not get even a single point for a grade A in foundation level, which makes the course very unattractive. One could argue that many children taking foundation level courses would not be competing at the same level as might be the case for CAO points. They might be more interested in courses that are not so hungry for CAO points, which is debatable.
The other more serious issue is that for the vast majority of matriculation courses, a grade D or higher in ordinary level mathematics is required. This, in turn, means that many children who should be taking foundation level courses — it may be that if they did foundation courses they could do extremely well, feel good about it and get a grade A — cannot do so if they want to go to a third level college because they must have a grade D in the ordinary level. It is more than speculation that many of these students will take the ordinary level. There is a danger they will fail because the ordinary level is a totally different type of course. It is much more abstract and demanding of formal mathematical skills as opposed to having a high level of applications in real life content.
This is a serious issue. I am pleased members shared their views on it because the Department agrees with what has been said. Numerous efforts have been made to try to get the colleges to accept a grade A and B at foundation level. We had success with the Garda Síochána some years ago following intensive discussions with the organisation. It agreed to open up its entry requirements and accept a grade A or B in foundation level mathematics as an alternative to a grade D in ordinary level mathematics. This was a significant step forward in terms of foundation level mathematics.
We have not been successful in regard to the colleges. There is a concern that if they open up the entry requirements, the problem of drop-out and so on might be exacerbated. Nevertheless, there is a view that the problem might be alleviated to some extent because if children have more positive attitudes and higher competences in the more practical areas they might be able to cope with many third level courses. It must be said, however, this is just one view.
Deputy Hoctor raised the issue of agricultural science and how students currently do some practical work. Only a sample of students in schools have a one-to-one interview with the examiner. The purpose of this is not to examine the students and allocate marks to them but to moderate the marks that have been submitted by the teacher. In agricultural science the teacher prepares a set of marks based on the continuous process in which the students have engaged over the two years of the course. The external examiner interviews a sample of the students in order to moderate the marks. If the examiner considers that the marks for these students have been either too high or too low an adjustment is put in place. This is the procedure used in assessment. It is an acceptable approach to assessment which happens in other areas. Agricultural science is different in that it is the only leaving certificate subject in which this takes place. Part of the reason for this is that the process involved in the project for agricultural science is one whereby it is not possible to look at an end product. For example, if the project involves rearing a calf, the calf cannot be brought in to the examiner. All the student can do is write up the project. The teacher is the best person to assess the process and the student's engagement with it but the assessment is not as unfair as it might seem. The agricultural science syllabus is being revised and the current assessment process involved in the subject is likely to change to be brought in line with all other subjects.
With regard to the physics and chemistry leaving certificate syllabuses and how they fit in with third level and industrial needs, I am not a specialist in that area. My understanding is that the purpose of the change was to reduce the content and to make it more real and up to date but not up to date in the context of meeting the needs of others. The inclusion of 30% content on science, technology and society is universal and is happening right across other countries.
The needs of third level kick in very much in terms of points because that is what drives student choice and this cannot be forgotten in the context of any review of these subjects. The fact that students who have not previously studied chemistry find it difficult to pick the subject up at third level is well recognised. Colleges are moving towards putting more facilities in place to cope with young people who are taking up the subject at the beginning. It is quite unusual to expect students to have three of the science subjects. Unless the child is very focused at an early stage, that is not something we would advise. We would advise students to take a broad range of subjects in fifth year in order to keep their options open. The colleges are moving towards taking on board that students are beginning courses without the benefit of a leaving certificate course in the subject. However, there are some issues to be resolved.
Nobody can get away from the fact that we have been running the in-service programme on a shoestring budget compared to the amount of money invested in in-service in other areas such as industry. We are moving forward in terms of new models and much progress has been made in recent years. We are now moving to a situation where teachers are being supported and encouraged to engage in more than one-day seminars whereby they can undertake aspects of in-service which will, in turn, give them credits towards masters programmes and so on. We have had a tremendous uptake of this. We have a very committed teaching force who respond very well to these incentives and who are anxious to further their development.
We have not found a scarcity of people prepared to deliver in-service programmes or that we must depend on third level staff. Our models for the type of in-service we provide for all schools depend on existing practitioners. The approach is to take a teacher who knows what it is like to be at the coalface and who is an expert in the subject area and to second those people, train them and have them deliver the in-service under the guidance of steering committees.
I mentioned the issue of in-service programmes because of the demands of the Department — particularly under the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey — on maintaining a standard school year. When a particular expert is removed from the school situation to deliver an in-service programme, there is no support mechanism for the school management and that is the reason there is resistance towards it. The delivery of in-service and the resistance to its provision leads to tension in this area and unless this issue is clarified quickly people will be more reserved about coming forward.
Ms McMorris
I did not realise that was the Senator's main concern. The integrity of the school year has been an issue and will remain so. Our students are entitled to 167 days of second level education and we will need to develop creative ways of dealing with the issue of in-service. The matter is high on the agenda.
Trainers are seconded for the full year in order that schools can replace them for the year. The Senator is correct with regard to part-time trainers and others who need to leave schools for a number of days. Agreements have now been made with the management bodies that there will be a cap on the number of days teachers can be taken out of schools. Practising teachers who attend in-service courses leave their students without teachers or with substitutes and this is unsatisfactory. These issues are being dealt with to the greatest extent possible in current circumstances but they are affected by teacher contract issues and the wider picture that complicates the matter.
I will conclude on double points for maths. The double points disappeared at a time of significant change in the syllabus, a change that involved a great reduction in the course content. The change set out to try to bring maths back into line with other subjects. The conferring of double points heightened the perception that maths was a difficult subject. All of those changes happened at the same time, although this may not seem obvious when examining the figures.
I thank the Department's representatives for this informative discussion.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.40 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 26 January 2006.