Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Oct 2012

Vol. 218 No. 2

Junior Certificate Reform and the Literacy and Numeracy Strategy: Statements

In the programme for Government, we made literacy a national cause and committed to reforming what students experience in the first three years in post-primary school, that is, between the ages of 12 and 15. I am pleased to be present to outline to Senators the progress that has been made to date. I am very anxious to hear the views of Senators on these reforms and the progress we have made.

In July 2011, I launched Literacy and Numeracy for Learning and Life, the national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people. I said then that I believe passionately that literacy and numeracy are among the most important life skills our schools teach. These skills are fundamental to a person's life chances. The strategy aims to ensure that no child should leave school without having mastered the skills to the best of his or her ability. The strategy is of considerable importance. The connection between the development of the strategy and Ireland's disappointing performance in the PISA 2009 results has been made by many, including me. While PISA may have been a shock to the system, information had been available for some time to show there is much room for improvement in the teaching and learning of literacy and numeracy in Ireland.

Let me recall some of the evidence for the House. The national assessments of English reading and mathematics have consistently shown considerable weaknesses in the teaching of mathematics. Second, the inspectorate of the Department has raised concerns about various aspects of the quality of the teaching of English and mathematics in a number of reports. Third, persistent concerns have been raised about mathematics, especially the relatively poor ability of Irish students to apply mathematical ideas to practical circumstances. Last and most worrying, we know from the work of the Educational Research Centre, based in St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, that certain groups of young people, such as children in disadvantaged communities, particularly boys, are not acquiring even the most basic literacy skills, as they should.

When we tackle problems in literacy and numeracy, we are also tackling inequality. To fail to do so is to deny many young people the opportunity to participate fully in society. Literacy and numeracy unlock many doors for young people. First, they unlock the door to a full and rounded education, which in turn unlocks the door to a fulfilling and rewarding working life. They unlock the door to full participation in social, cultural and community life. When these doors are unlocked, they simply cannot be closed again. We know they will remain open not just for today's young people, but also for their children and their children's children. The benefits do not stop with the individual. Mastering the skills of literacy and numeracy brings with it a host of social, cultural and health benefits for society as a whole.

I was delighted therefore to launch recently a new website developed by the National Adult Literacy Agency under the banner of the strategy. The website, helpmykidlearn.ie, contains a range of age-appropriate practical activities and information for parents seeking to support their children's literacy and numeracy development. The role of parents in this area must be constantly reiterated and reinforced, not just for those parents who already are converted, but with those parents who for whatever reason believe they do not have the confidence or competence to be of help.

Members will be aware the strategy emphasises the importance of reform at junior cycle level. As they are aware, this also has been advanced and today, I wish to provide them with an overview of the changes in the junior cycle and what they will mean for the learning of our young people and I look forward to the response of Members and the dialogue that will ensue. First, I will outline the reasons change is necessary. In late 2011, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, advised me on making changes at 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. Second, a significant number of students in second year become disengaged from the learning process and find it almost impossible to reconnect to learning subsequently. Third, choices made as early as the first year of junior cycle, for example to take ordinary level rather than higher level, are almost impossible to reverse and may limit the options open to young people for their leaving certificate programme and on leaving school. This is a particularly important issue for students in lower stream classes and those in schools serving areas of disadvantage. Fourth, in third year, the junior certificate examination dominates the experience of students. The focus of learning narrows considerably, the emphasis is on rote learning and for many students, the examination does not lead to positive learning experiences and outcomes. Members should not forget that in that mix, there also are the mock examinations in and around Easter time, which cost a small fortune for some parents.

I will now turn to the framework for junior cycle. I have accepted the NCCA's advice, set out in its document, Towards a Framework for Junior Cycle. If Members would like to read it, copies of the framework are available and I strongly urge them to familiarise themselves with it. The approach of the NCCA was developed following an extensive consultation process with parents, students, teachers, school managers and the wider public. It set out new vision, values and principles for the junior cycle. Having studied these carefully and having had extensive debates and discussions within the Department, I personally endorse fully these principles. I welcome that the syllabus designed for each subject will set out both the knowledge to be acquired and the skills and attitudes students will develop. The syllabus 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. I welcome the aspects of the proposed curriculum that will allow schools the flexibility to design their own junior cycle programme. This will empower schools in an unprecedented way to meet the interests and needs of their students and to relate more effectively to the community in which they are situated. I believe this is how we can accommodate difference in our society and how we can begin to address the real problem of inequality in our society, which remains rampant. I also am happy to accept the recommendations with regard to short courses and priority learning units for students with special education needs. I am convinced that all the elements of the framework proposed by the NCCA represent a huge development for second level education in Ireland.

I will now turn to the issue of assessment. Given the evidence now available to me, I have decided to go further. In the junior certificate, we currently have a State examination that has all the arrangements and hallmarks of a high-stakes examination. However, as long ago as 1975, an official report commented that for "a large and increasing number of candidates, [the State examination at the end of the junior cycle] is not necessary or indeed 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 junior cycle go on to study at senior cycle or in other forms of education and training.

Our percentage figures are among the highest in Europe.

The junior certificate is no longer a high stakes examination. For this reason, it no longer serves the educational needs of every young person. Real change only occurs when there is real change in assessment. This is what all of the evidence has been telling us for several years. The influence of assessment on how teachers and students engage with curricula and learning is well documented, not just in Ireland, but across the globe. The learning experience is narrowed if an assessment system is restricted to measuring students through external examinations and testing. When the experience is narrowed, teachers and students focus on learning what is necessary to do well in final examinations. They stop pursuing an educational programme that is designed to meet students' needs. I hope we will have a good discussion on this phenomenon.

The best performing educational systems have placed the assessment of learning at the lower secondary education level in the hands of schools, teachers and students. For this reason, we need to reform radically the way we assess students' learning in the junior cycle. I want to liberate our teachers from the narrow exam-based programmes to which many of them are prisoners. I want them to fulfil their potential as leaders of education learning. I want to put students at the heart of this change and 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.

The opportunities for such approaches to assessment are no longer stressful where assessment is not high stakes. The focus of assessment will be on supporting learning. We are asking teachers to do in third year what they currently do in second and fifth years. In the next eight years, I will phase out the traditional junior certificate examination in its current form. Students, rather than subject examinations, will be at the centre of the new approach to assessment.

What exactly will this new form of assessment look like? 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 outline to Senators 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 each syllabus. This will guide the assessment of student progress and enable teachers to chart the next steps for each student's learning.

Assessment at the end of the junior cycle will be completed by the school and 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 approximately 40% of the marks awarded to the student. 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 final assessment component will be a single written paper or assignment and will represent 60% of the marks.

In the first few years of implementation, the papers will be set by the State Examinations Commission, SEC, but 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 also be corrected by the SEC for an introductory transitional period. Schools will continue to use materials provided by the SEC.

The primary purpose of the certification at the end of junior cycle will be to support learning during the three years. We must move beyond examinations to a process of generating evidence of learning and of sharing feedback.

This is not a cost saving exercise but about ensuring that we do better.

I will secure the necessary resources to bring this vision to fruition from within my overall budget allocation. I will ensure that schools, their principals and teachers will be provided with the necessary professional support to enable them to implement the framework from 2013 and 2014. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, will begin to develop curriculum, standards and supports immediately. The State Examinations Commission has begun planning for its phased withdrawal from junior cycle examinations.

The changes being implemented through the literacy and numeracy strategy and through the reform of junior cycle will make a dramatic and real difference to students in our schools. The measures will help students from all walks of life to realise their full potential. The skills and abilities of our young people are the key to Ireland's success in future, and our young people can only fully realise their entire potential if we give them the tools they need. The reforms I have started to implement are the way to go.

They are also the core skills which enable young people take on the challenge of higher order learning and research that make modern economies competitive.
The strategy adopts a modern and comprehensive definition of literacy and acknowledges that this includes oral language and all forms of written and printed communication from handwriting to even digital literacy. Young people need engagement with a wide range of contexts in developing their literacy. This means that we do not narrow the curriculum in pursuit of a mechanical reading proficiency. Literacy is not the preserve of language lessons and this is something that also underpins our reform of junior cycle.
Mathematics also needs context. Often our students can perform mechanical operations such as equations and various other mathematical puzzles but they are unable to apply these skills to real-life situations. We face a considerable challenge to develop a much broader understanding and ability to use mathematics in the way this strategy sets out.
The strategy sets out how we must tackle literacy and numeracy standards through a comprehensive and balanced set of actions in each area of the educational system. It sets out a radical programme of change in areas such as: teacher education and teachers' continuing professional development; curriculum change; how principals and teachers focus on the literacy and numeracy skills of their students; how principals, teachers, schools and the educational system monitor students' progress in a balanced and educationally sound way; how we respond to the learning needs of individuals; how we evaluate the work of schools; and the strategy also acknowledges the central role of parents and how we need to support them as they help their children to learn.
Implementation of the strategy has been prioritised in the Department and in the time since the launch we have seen real progress in implementation of the measures it contains. Reconfigured and extended bachelor of education programmes for primary teaching began in September 2012. The Teaching Council is in the process of reviewing reconfigured bachelor of education programmes for the post-primary sector. These reforms involve real and significant change in initial teacher education which will allow for an increased focus on pedagogy in literacy and numeracy and classroom practice. In effect, the three-year course for primary school teachers will be extended to four with a focus on pedagogic skills and the traditional HDip will now take two years rather than one year.
We are fortunate in Ireland that entrants to teacher education are among the most talented and high achieving of our school leavers. Initial teacher education must supply this high quality cohort with the tools they need to become highly-effective teachers. I have put in place a team of literacy and numeracy advisers to support the teachers already in our schools. Their mandate is to help teachers and schools to implement the strategy and a national programme of professional development for primary and second level teachers is well under way.
For beginning teachers, the national teacher induction programme provides for both literacy and numeracy support. All primary schools have been asked to increase the time spent on mathematics by 70 minutes per week, and to increase the time spent on literacy by one hour per week. Post-primary schools have been asked to endeavour to ensure that students have access to mathematics and English classes every day. I have also introduced standardised testing in English reading and mathematics, and Irish reading for Irish medium schools, so that pupils are tested at the end of second, fourth and sixth class, that is at the ages of eight, ten and 12. Additional funding has been provided to schools to support this. The results of the tests are reported to parents as part of an overall standardised report on their children's learning. There are also aggregated reports to school boards of management and to the Department on overall performance in these tests.
This is a balanced approach to assessment which will avoid some of the mistakes made in other jurisdictions on these two islands. National policy and strategy is important but it is school communities that can make a real difference for their students. I want to empower schools and school leadership in particular to continually improve the teaching and learning experience. This philosophy is evident in our new approach to school self-evaluation and I encourage all parents, teachers, school principals and boards of management to use these new processes to deliver the very best for our young people.
How schools inform and engage with parents is critical but parents need other sources of support and information as well. I was delighted, therefore, to recently launch a new website developed by the National Adult Literacy Agency under the banner of the strategy.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I will begin where he left off, with the reform of the junior certificate. The Minister referred to some of the work done by the NCCA, and the ESRI report last year pointed out quite strongly the deficiencies in the current junior certificate, providing a very strong evidence base for the reforms being brought forward. The ESRI report followed a cohort of 900 students in 12 schools from first year to completion of the leaving certificate in what was the first longitudinal study of its kind of a cohort of second level students. The evidence it provides about the student experience feeds into the motivations behind the reform and tells us what we must be considering.

The report indicated that under the current structure, young people's experience of junior cycle is quite fragmented between first, second and third year. First year involves much turbulence for all students coming into a new environment, with new classmates and curricula and an increase in the number of subjects studied. One expects first year to be difficult for many reasons. Worryingly, there is evidence that second year is a key time as people, particularly young men, begin to disengage from the curriculum. At such a young age, there is a process where one can be alienated from the school environment, bored by subjects, put off by the excessive focus we currently have on rote learning and the grind towards the leaving certificate. Our focus is on a terminal and high stakes exam with the junior certificate.

It is important to note there is a strong evidence base for change, and I welcome the reforms put forward in that context. They are positive and bold, which is good. We should not be boxing off second level students so early into an exam system where they are making choices prematurely about subjects and levels of learning. We should be opening their minds and give people access to as many short courses as possible. We should do our best to educate and develop the whole student, and I welcome the emphasis in the NCCA report on well-being. We have discussed that issue much in this House in debating mental health and the need to ensure we equip young people with coping skills, mental wellness and all the skills they need for life, rather than setting out in third year a mode of education where they must cram for a test.

The reforms are positive and I welcome the move towards continuous assessment. As the Minister indicated, it already happens in other years within the existing cycle and it works perfectly well not just in other countries at second level but in the third level system. Moreover, third level institutions are used to giving students marks in important assessments conducted within an institution. I accept that teacher unions have concerns, and although some are unnecessary, others are a genuine reflection of a worry that we have not yet seen an implementation plan.

We need to see how that assessment will work, what supports will be put in place for teachers from a professional development point of view and, in terms of assessment tools, what procedures will be in place to ensure a similar metric is used across schools and that there is not too much scope for difference depending on who is teaching particular classes within a school and not just across schools.

My main question on junior certificate reform is about the implementation plan. When will we see a detailed implementation plan? That is essential in terms of seeing the costings for all of this. When the reform document was published, the Minister made a commitment that he would secure the money. I suppose everybody in this House hopes that is the case but we would like to know the amount of money, if it is secure and if the Minister has put in costings for it. I appreciate there is a long implementation period but we should be looking at teacher professional development as soon as possible to ensure they are ready, at the development of short courses and so on. I understand schools will have flexibility but there is a need for national work to be done there as well.

Has the Minister put in a pitch for next year's budget in that context? If he thinks there will be expenditure next year, has the Department pitched for it and, if so, for how much and for what? When does the Minister foresee a detailed implementation plan being published to provide the reassurance needed for teachers, students and parents that this is beyond being a great idea, which it is, and to ensure it works in reality? I do not think anybody disagrees with the idea but there is a great deal of concern about making sure it works in reality.

We welcome the literacy and numeracy strategy. Publication of the final strategy by the Government followed on from the draft published in November 2010 by the last Government and the work done on that. The targets in the strategy are important but, more importantly, I welcome the emphasis being put on teacher education. That is something the Minister has been working on and it is probably the most important issue because regardless of what curriculum one teaches, the most important thing in education is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. That is a crucial issue and this side of the House will support the Minister in placing as much emphasis as possible on teacher training and driving through the reform agenda.

I welcome the fact that there will be standardised testing in maths, science and English as part of the junior certificate but also feeding into the overall literacy and numeracy programme. Perhaps we have rested on our laurels a little bit in terms of our previous performance in PISA surveys and our literacy results. The 2010 PISA results gave everybody a bit of a shock. Some of that has been explained by issues like changes in the composition of students and the fact that we have a more diverse set of students sitting those tests than heretofore. Maybe that addresses some of it but certainly not all of it. It is important we take it as a wake up call and ensure we make the bold changes needed to drive up our literacy and numeracy rates, get them among the best in the world and keep ahead of the curve. Rather than being satisfied with how we have been doing over the past ten years in all of these issues, we need to look at where we want to be in ten years time, where other countries are going, the investment they are making in education and the difference that will make for their young people and, in particular, their workforces in the coming years.

Our main concern around the literacy and numeracy strategy would be in regard to resources, in particular some supports being cut while others are announced. We have discussed last year's DEIS cuts on many occasions in this House and I accept the Minister acknowledged that they were a mistake. We need to be very careful heading into the next budget. It is great to announce a new scheme but if what we are doing strikes out something that works, it is crazy. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that DEIS will not be touched again during the lifetime of this Government because the evidence is there that it works and pays for itself several times over. That must be a core part of the literacy programme.

I refer finally to Project Maths, which has been the most significant reform of the science and maths curriculum. The project has taught us lessons about what works and what does not as we try to move to a system that is based more on critical thinking, problem solving, investigation for other subjects. It is positive that the take up of higher level maths and student engagement with the subject is good. I acknowledge concerns and criticisms were expressed as well but perhaps we can learn from them as we roll reform out across other junior certificate and leaving certificate subjects.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire arís. The major overhaul of the junior certificate replacing a once-off State examination with a school-based model of continuous assessment is welcome. I congratulate the Minister on his courage in going even further than most people expected with the process of reform. Speaking on RTE recently, the ESRI's Emer Smyth said that the variety of teaching methods and the new structures will result in teenagers engaging more with learning, particularly active learning, which has suffered due to the emphasis on rote learning and teaching to the test, as Senator Power said. These, unfortunately, can sometimes be features of teaching and learning.

In addition, research has shown that a significant number of first year students do not make progress, particularly in English and mathematics, a number of students in second year become disengaged and third year is about the examinations. I have previously stated in the House regarding assessment that "You don't fatten a pig by weighing it every day" but, nevertheless, strategic assessment on a continuous basis can only assist the student in the terms outlined by the Minister not only as a certification but as a teaching and learning tool. It will provide essential information to students in this regard but it will be necessary for the results to be communicated and explained in real time to them in order that they can become the main agents of their own education, which is one of the great aims of education, and not be perceived as barbarians at the gates of knowledge, as The Iliad famously described it.

There is nothing to fear from teachers assessing their own students. It occurs already with the teacher assessing the student every minute of every school day. It happens in art up to leaving certificate level and in further education projects. As the Minister said, primary schools must assess students on a statutory basis in second, fourth and sixth classes.

With regard to literacy and numeracy, I was struck by the founding statement incorporated into the Minister's press release for the launch of the strategy on 8 July 2011: "A wide ranging new strategy aimed at ensuring that every child leaves school having mastered literacy and numeracy. It is the Governments belief that no child should leave school unable to read and write and use mathematics to solve problems". That is the key and ambitious targets have been set.

I would like to tell two stories. Years ago one of my football team colleagues was getting married on a Saturday.

He came to me during training on Tuesday and asked me to get someone to teach him to read because his future wife did not know that he could not read. I could not get him reading before Saturday but I introduced him to the adult education reading officer. These anecdotes happened so long ago that the people cannot be traced. Another friend was working on a farm in Meath and was told to drive the tractor home. Instead of driving to Dundalk, he drove to Dublin because he was afraid to ask and he could not read the signposts. We do not want this to happen in modern Ireland.

Two questions on junior certificate reform were asked of me last night. I refer to quality assurance with regard to the recognition of school-based exams. I know the answer I expect but the person who asked it would like to hear the Minister's views. What is to stop teachers inflating results in the exams? Some time ago, we heard there would be only eight subjects for the junior certificate but this measure changes the process.

Whereas the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals has warmly welcomed the move, the ASTI and the TUI have expressed reservations about the level of consultation. I ask the Minister to comment.

I welcome the Minister's plans for the literacy and numeracy strategy. I remember working on the National Economic and Social Forum report on this subject. I was alarmed at the figures, with one in ten children leaving school with literacy issues and rising to one in four children in disadvantaged areas. Someone tried to tell me it was okay because other European countries had higher figures but I did not care whether the figures were higher in other European countries. I care about the fact one in ten children leave school with literacy and numeracy issues.

The reports all talk about an all-community approach and how it is not just about the reality in school. In the supermarket, a parent can ask the child to get peas and can spell out the letters. It involves these measures and involving the older generations in the community. While preparing the report, I heard from many parent organisations that, when they bring their loved ones to the school gates, they are told to ensure the children can tie their laces and have a lunch they can easily eat while the teachers will look after the teaching. Parents were told not to teach their children to read because the teachers will have to undo it and reteach them. I heard this going around the country talking to parents groups.

Was this from parents or teachers?

This was the message parents were getting from schools. I do not refer to all teachers. We read all the reports and talk about everyone working together in the community and how education is not just the preserve of schools. It is important that, when examining plans, we should try to involve the community. We have outstanding teachers working with communities but there is also an approach that parents do not have a role in the education of their children.

I welcome the Minister's plans in respect of the junior certificate. I have examined them quite closely. Continuous assessment is a good principle. I wonder if I am saying this because I think I would have done better on continuous assessment than in exams. Some young people will perform better under one method than another, which makes me wonder whether it is part of my reasoning in favour of it. Continuous assessments are good practice for life and for the ability to deliver consistently. It will have a positive effect on the student's learning experience, the development of the most-needed skills from an early age and, most important, the capacity to analyse information, communicate, to work in a team and to think creatively.

The proposed focus on the long-term development of literacy and numeracy instead of a one-size-fits-all junior certificate will encourage students and teachers creatively and allow for a more informed and self-aware process of acquiring knowledge. Students will be able to develop their interests and skills without the rigidity of learning specifically for the tests. This will, hopefully, relieve some of the pressure experienced by some students during the formal examination period.

Another proposed reform is the curriculum flexibility, which is great. It will allow schools to design new teaching programmes. Hopefully, they will involve the students in that as they will have a great deal to say. Perhaps there could be subjects on local development, new media and arts programmes. It would facilitate a much wider approach to education.

As far as the proposed assessments are concerned, teachers know their students best and are best placed to reflect on students' performance, abilities and work. The focus on long-term overview of a student's development will help parents to see the progress being made by their child. However, I share some of the concerns raised by the TUI and the ASTI generally about the consultation process. Could the Minister clarify this? I have read conflicting reports about it. There have been statements from the Minister's officials saying they were consulted, while I have heard from the two unions that they have not been consulted.

With regard to the assessment process, I wonder about small communities and the pressures that will come from parents, in a place where everybody knows each other, for a positive assessment. Would we be bringing the concept of clientelism into the school system? How will we ensure that teachers will be trained? I am aware of the Minister's plans for teacher training, but I am referring to teachers who are already in place. How do we recalibrate how to deliver their training? I would welcome clarification of that from the Minister.

Finally, the Minister talks about phasing this in over eight years. I can understand that on paper but part of me sees it as a slow guillotine descending on the schools over the eight years. How will it work? Will there be a value on the year in which one did the junior certificate? I wonder about the reality of phasing it in and whether we are sometimes better off to just pull off the plaster and go for it. If this is the new system, eight years seems to be quite a long period for it to be introduced. However, I believe we should consider change, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has put the document in the public domain and allowed us to scrutinise it and be part of this process.

I welcome the Minister to the House and welcome the opportunity to participate in this valuable debate. The mission of the Department of Education and Skills is to enable learners to achieve their full potential and contribute to Ireland's economic, social and cultural development.

What is wrong with the junior certificate examination? When the results come out every year we read about the number of students who got 14 or 13 grade As or honours and see the pictures of the smiling students in the newspapers. I was certainly not one of the lucky ones to receive 14 grade As. Unfortunately, we also sometimes frown over the reports of alcohol fuelled celebrations and public disorder that night. Then, that is the end of it for another year. The students buy the examinations papers as soon as they are published in September and start practising for the following June. That is the reality for many of them.

We must focus on the reality that the current junior certificate programme is not enabling students to become independent learners, to achieve their full potential or to acquire the skills necessary for life long learning. When the junior certificate cycle was introduced approximately 20 years ago its objective was to move away from the rigid examination based, rote learning that had characterised the old intermediate certificate. Initially, hopes were high. The programme was based on the clear principles of breadth, balance, relevance and quality. However, as the programme evolved, it came to be viewed as a mini leaving certificate, with the focus completely on the end results. Many of the original aims got lost in the process.

The new junior cycle programme aims to place the needs of our students at the core of what happens in schools and to improve the quality of their learning experiences and outcomes. Such an approach should enable all students to achieve their full potential and be properly challenged in their learning, thereby raising educational standards.

We have all heard the phrase "Ireland has the best educational standards in the world" trotted out on many occasions in the past. We heard it so often we actually believed it and probably became complacent regarding the skills we assumed our students had acquired having completed their second level education. Alarm bells should have been ringing when third level institutions were highlighting the lack of independent and self-directed learning skills being displayed by undergraduates and employers were bemoaning the drop in standards in basic literacy and numeracy.

It is clear that for far too long our teaching and learning in the classroom has focused on attainment in examinations, which has promoted rote learning and stifled creativity. A case, I believe, of the tail wagging the dog. The new junior cycle programme will address these failings by emphasising seven key skills, the primary being literacy and numeracy. In removing the rigid focus on the terminal examination as the ultimate goal, schools will now be empowered to design programmes tailored to their individual school settings.

The evidence of the decline in our educational standards is clear and worrying. As alluded to by the Minister, one in ten children in Irish schools is experiencing serious difficulty with reading or writing. In some disadvantaged schools, this is as high as one in three students. There has been a decline in the performance of post-primary students in Ireland in international literacy tests. For example, in 2000 Irish 15 year old students performed at the above average level in the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA, coming fifth. However, in 2009, Irish students performed at the average level, coming 17th place out of 34. This is a startling decline. The 2009 tests show that 17% of all Irish 15 year olds and almost one in four teenage boys lack the literacy skills to perform effectively in today's society. Based on this evidence, we welcome the national strategy introduced by the Minister to improve numeracy and literacy among children and young people. This strategy provides a clear roadmap on where the education system needs to go and a clear view of the collaborative role of all the educational partners.

I would like to focus for a moment on literacy issues. What exactly is literacy and how do we interpret it? Traditionally, we have always thought of literacy as the skill of reading and writing. Our understanding of literacy today encompasses much more than this. Literacy includes the capacity to read, understand and critically appreciate various forms of communication, including the spoken language, printed text, broadcast and digital media. Not only do young people need to be able to read and understand the written texts, they must also be able to critically analyse the content of what they are reading. The Wikipedia and Google generation must be given the tools to help them discern fact from fiction.

Development of good literacy and numeracy skills among all young people is fundamental to the life chances of each individual and essential to the quality and equity of Irish society. The new junior cycle programme recognises that the development of children's literacy and numeracy skills in post-primary schools is not just the responsibility of teachers of languages and mathematics. Teachers of all post-primary subjects have an important role to play in developing and consolidating students' abilities to use literacy and numeracy. It should be recognised that learners in Irish-medium schools and settings have varied learning needs and that they need to be able to develop literacy skills in Irish and English.

Implementation of the numeracy and literacy strategy and junior cycle programme relies on the collaboration and co-operation of the entire school community, including management, teachers, students and parents. No one group can effect change on its own. International research shows that the support of parents who are engaged in their child's learning has a significant positive impact on the child's educational achievement, in particular in literacy and numeracy. Young people achieve better when their parents take an active interest in their education, supporting and encouraging them and creating high but achievable expectations.

The move away from a single terminal exam towards a system of school-based assessment will ensure parents will be provided with more comprehensive feedback on the continuing attainments of their children. It will allow students review their own progress and discuss it with their teachers and other students with a view to identifying the next steps to be taken. This will help build students' capacity to manage their own learning and motivate them to stick with a complex task or problem. It will also form the basis of more informed conversations between parents and schools on the learning of their students. I commend the Minister on his obvious commitment to raising the educational standards of our young people. As a teacher with more than 25 years experience - I hate saying that-----

Immense experience.

I thank the Minister. I will use that phrase the next time. I am acutely aware of how the current system is failing many of our students and I look forward with great enthusiasm to the imminent changes.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I did my junior certificate in June 2003, almost ten years ago.

Some memories of that time stand out. I can particularly remember my diet of fizzy drinks and chocolate and the nights spent cramming because of the large number of subjects we took. On some days we sat two exams. Other Senators mentioned rote learning, and for many subjects I studied at the time it was not necessarily a case of being examined on what one learned over the years but what one could learn off best, how well one or one's teacher could predict the exam and how one's teacher taught. I agree with the Minister that "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". I remember learning off maths theorems, which was painful and definitely not a positive learning experience and outcome. As soon as the exam was over, the theorems were gone and I could not tell one what they were. I do not even know how many there were, perhaps ten. This is not the way forward for our education system, which is why we welcome these changes.

The fall in literacy and numeracy standards in recent years is of concern and can be attributed in part to the ineffectiveness of the junior certificate and how unfit for purpose it is. As the Minister stated, it is not a high-stakes examination any more, which is why there is a serious need for reform. This may shock the Minister but credit is due to him. I credit him with implementing these radical changes to an exam which is important to young people during their first years of secondary school. We need to learn from progressive high performing education systems such as those in Finland and New Zealand where there is less emphasis on learning by rote and greater importance is placed on continuous assessment, which provides a better gauge and analysis of how students perform, their understanding and whether they are falling down in certain areas such as literacy and numeracy.

I understand the revised junior certificate exam syllabus will be drawn up by the NCCA and will combine traditional subjects with a number of short courses in areas such as digital media, entrepreneurship, sustainable energy and living and Chinese language and culture. These are very important because they reflect the changing society and world in which we live. Just as we have moved in large terms from vocational education and such training, it is important we adapt to evolving society. The inclusion of the Chinese language is important and Senator Healy Eames has often called for this in the House. I hope these changes ensure future generations of young people leaving Irish schools are much better equipped to meet the demands of an evolving workplace and global market. However, concerns exist that these reforms will be rendered meaningless unless the education system is properly resourced. This includes ensuring there are incentives for the most capable graduates to enter teaching, which means getting the basics right and ensuring we have the teachers capable of delivering any revised course we set down.

Given the prospects for many graduating teachers, it would not be surprising if fewer capable teachers were attracted to the profession. Without capable teachers, the reform would be rendered meaningless. We need to make sure that the pupil-teacher ratio is at a rate that allows each child to achieve his or her potential.

We need to make sure that at all levels of education, special needs assistants and specialised language assistants are made available to children and young people so that we are not cutting them off too early and thereby hindering their literacy and numeracy standards.

I also welcome proposals to put in place standardised tests in science-related subjects. We cannot overemphasise the importance of science and this includes looking at how science is taught at primary level, which currently averages 1.5 hours per week and is well below the OECD average. I did not learn any science in school although I remember telling my parents I wanted to study chemistry when I was older, not having a clue what chemistry was or any affinity for it when I finally found out what it was.

As was mentioned by other Senators, one of the areas of concern for teachers would be the plans to have teachers assess their students' work. The matter has been raised with me a number of times. It has been widely reported in the media and I know teachers' representatives have made those comments to the Minister. They would find themselves in a very difficult position in terms of the increased workload and the time available to them to teach. In addition, objectivity would be critical, particularly when there are many competing demands on schools and competitiveness between them. I am sure the Minister will address these concerns in his response to us and allay our fears in some way. Teachers are also afraid of the backlash or added burden or pressure from parents, especially those who might have unrealistic expectations of their children. These proposals need to be considered. In respect of what Senator Power mentioned earlier, could the Minister tell us how this is going to be resourced? We do not want to see these reforms fall flat on their face and our goals in literacy and numeracy fall at the final hurdle, especially when these reforms are so critical.

I welcome the Minister. This is a useful debate because we are getting into the quality issues - the substantive issue of what education is about. We must ask what is the purpose of education. When I ask myself that question, the answer for me is to release in the child and student a hint of his or her own potential - just a hint. This is the spark where he or she says, "This is who I am and this is what I am capable of doing". That is only the beginning of a lifelong journey. So it is about giving them routes and wings. Literacy and numeracy are at that stage of giving them routes and wings. Believe it or not, I used to be a lecturer in literacy education although sometimes I forget that. The first four years are about learning to read and then one changes to reading to learn. This involves saying, "Here is the world and I'm going to read the world", which is phenomenal.

My life at the moment is an exam culture life. I have a child in first year who has a poor short-term memory and dyslexia. This morning, my husband was going through the Megalithic period in history with her. I thought, at some level, what did it matter if she never learned about it. My son is studying for his leaving certificate. I cannot even have a proper conversation with him about it because he says he is fed up with people asking him about it. He told me that even if he hitched a ride from Oranmore down to where we live, people would talk to him about it. So we never get into the real issue of what one would like to be or do, even though decisions must be made by January in terms of completing the CAO form.

Our educational culture is overly focused on examinations. Schools often reinforce failure and stereotypes because of the exclusive and excessive focus on examinations.

Some days ago, a mother told me an interesting story. Her little girl, who had learning difficulties in primary school, is quite creative. The girl, who is now in first year, helped her mother to pick out a hat and when she saw the lady making the hats, she said she could make them also. She asked her mother to ask the hat-maker whether she could work with her on a Saturday. On coming home, she asked whether she could have a window in which to display her hats to sell them. She said she should have chosen business. I refer to a child with learning difficulties who, because of encountering one activity that stimulated her creativity, put a world together for herself. This is phenomenal and we need to encourage it.

I fully agree with reforming the junior cycle to promote creative and critical thinking. As Senator Moran stated, literacy is not just about learning to read and write but also about learning to think critically, make decisions and be discerning. If this thinking is built into the junior cycle, it will be good.

I like the notion of continuous assessment. I am only sorry that in the case of my two children, it will not be realised sooner. I am being selfish in this regard. I worry about cramming. As Senator Reilly stated, one sometimes leaves an examination in the hope one will never have to encounter the subject again. I remember a teacher who told me how discouraging it was for him when a student, on finishing sixth class, dumped all his books into the bin for him to see. The pupil clearly did not value the learning and was never reached. This can be very upsetting.

The proposals are great on creative, critical thinking and continuous assessment. Short courses are wonderful. It will be exciting to see what courses the schools come up with themselves.

I am a proponent of Chinese because of globalisation. I hope to be involved with UCC in regard to tendering to produce the programme at second level.

The standard assessment tests are interesting. I had hoped the ratio of continuous assessment to State examinations at junior certificate level would be 60:40. I like the idea of the school certificate but all schools will not have the name of Blackrock College. There are approximately 750 second level schools.

I am concerned about the children who will drop out after the junior cycle, bearing in mind that one can legally drop out of school after 16. These children might have no State examination. They will have the standard assessment test, which is fair enough.

At level 3-----

The Minister might tell me a little more about that because I am not fully sure about it.

As with Senator Moran, I am concerned about clientelism. It exists in politics and, therefore, we cannot say it will be absent in education. I am also concerned about poor teaching but I hope the Teaching Council will get rid of that.

Let me make one remark in support of parents. The Minister should set up a school-home intranet, accessible with a password. This would enable teachers to upload their school notes and homework. Parents could then check the homework their children are given to do. By the time some parents come home, the children are too tired. I was operating such an intranet system in a college in 2000. It would not be very costly to introduce. As Senator van Turnhout said, it would keep parents abreast of what their child is doing at school. It would also make teachers very professional. It would uplift them in that they would not always have to be chasing the children. All the relevant information could be placed on a platform.

I wish the Minister well and would like to hear his answers to the one or two questions I put to him.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is always interesting to hear his ideas on reform of education about which he has spoken for many years. I would like to start in a different place, and I know that is a phrase used in a Kerryman's directions.

The Senator is going to start at university level.

No. I will start at primary level but I thank the Senator for that prompt. With the best wishes for the Irish language at heart, I wonder if the amount of time spent at primary level and the first part of secondary level on the language is part of what drives boys from a working class background from education? They spend ten years learning the language out of a book and never speak it. I was trying to make those points during the debate on the Údaras na Gaeltachta legislation because I feared the provision to remove the democratically elected people might damage the Gaeltacht but we lost that argument. However, we need the Gaeltacht in order that people will go there to speak the language.

Repeatedly learning a language from a book and never speaking it seems bizarre. Does that do the Irish language much good? Does it alienate young boys in urban areas from the education system? We have to address that, as the Minister has addressed many of the traditional problems in Irish education in what he is doing today.

Roddy Doyle could not write in Irish and, if he had, the Irish language perfectionist would have corrected virtually every second sentence. I do not know what such a book would have looked like - a bowdlerised version of Roddy Doyle's book. We need Wayne Rooney Irish and Roddy Doyle Irish, by which I mean that it would be spoken. The space we blocked out of Irish education to make a failed attempt to revive the Irish language did not help the language much. In the 1920s there was a science subject, rural science and nature study, and some languages. Research tells us that a good time to start to learn languages is when young people are at primary school. We should include that in our remit.

I have heard the Minister speak in public and I agree there is a lot that is very good about Irish primary education but it does not mean that one would not examine the issue of the overwhelming amount of time spent teaching the Irish language and that being at the cost of what happened in 1920s, namely, the removal of a science subject of a kind for that era and removing a language subject.

We face a number of problems, which we have all discussed. There is the mathematics problem, to which the Minister repeatedly alluded in his speech. Some figures from the Royal Irish Academy indicate that up to 80% of mathematics teachers feel they lack the necessary qualifications and, at primary level, they are lacking in confidence. This is a case of úll agus úll eile, but if people feel they are lacking in confidence and they have not been prepared properly to teach that subject, that is a problem.

Another problem is that of foreign languages. The Minister's proposals to integrate teacher training into the full university experience would be very good for teachers. They would take the full subjects and meet the range of people from all the other disciplines, their fellow students. Teaching is the most important thing we can do for the next generation and one might ask why we would educate teachers away from the context they need with all the other students. The Minister's move to put that training on campus is extremely worthwhile.

The Finland experience is that a master's degree is the normal qualification for a subject one teaches in school. I fully agree with the Minister that children in school are that important - much more important than some of the business careers which brought the country into the current state of disarray it is in.

I express the hope that a distance does not develop between the authors of the report and the people they are sincerely trying to help. For instance, in the first three pages of the report, there is a reference to the acronyms NCCA, SEC, DES, PLU, CPD and NFQ. Could English be introduced in this context? I have a concern that people in education are losing the emphasis on the classroom and the best relationship of all, namely, that between the teacher and the student.

There is an outburst of such use of acronyms in the first three pages. Moreover, on page 13, the acronyms CSPE, SPHE and NCCA appear, while there is another a lot of them on page 14, including L2LP. If one is trying to interest the people the Minister mentioned in all of this, namely, 14 year old males, one should not drive them out unintentionally by speaking a language that no one except the specialists could understand.

In the time allocated to me, I wish to raise one further concern raised by those who will be directly affected, namely, some of the students. They have approached me to indicate their preference to be assessed independently, rather than by teacher X, who may have had it in for the students ever since they came into the school. While I obviously cannot comment, if one speaks to 14 year olds, as the Minister does, this sentiment exists. They may believe it preferable not to have school assessment because, for whatever reason, the students have never managed to get on with teacher X and are afraid the teacher in question will bring this into the students' assessment. Consequently, the students would prefer to have it done by the Department of Education and Skills in Athlone on an impersonal basis. Perhaps this is part of that tradition about which several Senators have spoken, that is, clientelism in Irish life. Perhaps this is reverse clientelism, whereby one believes there are some human relationships in education that have failed and which will rebound to one's disadvantage, were this proposed system to bring about change.

We must address the issue concerning working-class boys in the city areas and I would put Irish down as one of the problems. As to how to get them to remain, the model I have in my mind is they might stay for the football and learn something, that is, if one has a broader curriculum. The Minister's continuous assessment proposal is worth doing for them. I understand the model is that such students might anticipate a dreadful exam in third year, which they had no chance of passing. However, one would be able to tell them they already have accumulated many credits during their first three years and, consequently, it will not be that bad. One could persuade them to remain on for the year to see how things go because they already had the points in the bag. I note this also is a concern for the ESRI and if such an approach worked for them, it would be terrific, providing there are not the others, who fear handing over that power to teachers with whom they have an unsatisfactory relationship. The Minister always is welcome in this Chamber with all his ideas on education and so on, of which there are many in this report. Molaim an obair and I wish the Minister luck.

I also welcome the Minister to the House. In the main, I agree with many of the comments of many of the previous speakers, particularly those of Senator Barrett. My own experience of teaching has been very limited and was limited to university teaching. However, many of the difficulties one encounters at university level are the same as those one encounters at second level or at primary level. The bottom line is we live in an era of change. I do not know a single person under the age of 50 who is in the same job he or she was in 25 years ago and that is the bottom line. Consequently, when one examines an education system, one must be contemplating an education system that focuses on self-directed learning as its core.

I have a question in respect of the numeracy and literacy strategy. For the sake of argument, I note we live in an era in which technology is changing at a rapid rate and in which we are experiencing fast and rapid changes in the area of voice recognition software, for example. Consequently, why do we focus so much on having our children write reams of information when we should be asking them to embrace new technology? Another issue, to which Edward de Bono points, is that while there is literacy and numeracy, there also is operacy. In the future, operacy, that is, the ability to get things done, surely must be at the core of any curriculum. In addition, I note we place very little emphasis in our education system on verbal skills and yet, as one goes through life, qualities of leadership and the ability to verbalise ideas are critical to our system.

In respect of the junior certificate reforms, somewhat like Senator Barrett, I will end up with the university system, having started with the junior certificate. There is no question but that the reforms to the junior certificate are both timely and long overdue.

Our education system at every level has suffered significantly in the past 15-20 years. A core curricular system that requires learning off vast bodies of information, giving correct answers and repeating it is outlandish in this day and age. I congratulate the Minister. I wonder how we tolerated the current system for so long.

Our current approach to learning is inherently boring. Why do children from deprived backgrounds in particular have difficulty with the education system? Not to put too fine a point on it, but if a household recognises the long-term importance of education and is willing to inculcate in students the stamina necessary to put themselves through the grind of learning that we require of them, the system clearly rewards educational attainment depending on a student's family background. Apart from the fact that this does not get the best out of our children, it is morally unjust. This is the bottom line as far as our current system is concerned.

If the Minister is successful in changing the junior certificate, either he or a successor will have no option but to deal with the leaving certificate. Amending the junior certificate will leave us with the anomalous leaving certificate.

I will address the university sector, as we must consider the education system as a whole. I am sure that Senator Barrett has had a similar experience, but university lecturers tell me that it takes three years of a degree programme to move students from operating by rote learning to thinking for themselves. I am not even convinced that three years will achieve this.

I found a college newspaper article written by a student of a principal university that shall remain nameless, as I would not like to give myself or Senator Barrett - I am from UCD and he is from Trinity - the pleasure of knowing where the student came from. The student is on an exchange programme with another jurisdiction. For the sake of argument, I will say Australia.

According to the writer, the leaving certificate is often criticised for placing more emphasis on being able to cram information, learn off essays and parrot it off in an exam rather than trying to create students who can think critically and creatively. When students reach college, however, they learn that they are again expected to learn off notes and write down as many of them in an exam as they can if they are to succeed, with a few essays thrown in for good measure. The student had only one exam during the semester in which the article was written. It was worth 50% of one module. The other seven eighths of the course involved a range of exercises, for example, group projects, cross-disciplinary research essays, case notes, mooting, presenting in front of tutorial classes coupled with papers on the relevant topics, take-home essays and written reflective journal passages.

In the beginning, the student was overwhelmed by the amount of work and the requirement to use different skills in such exercises. The student missed the cosy days of the nameless university where he could do a little work for most of the semester, spend the last few weeks catching up and cramming and still get reasonable marks.

However, the student noticed something. He began to work hard consistently and stopped leaving everything until the last moment. Moreover, the student knew that, upon returning to Ireland, he would have learned a number of skills, including how to research properly, work in a group, speak in front of people, read psychological papers, critically assess the law, prepare for cases and give thorough legal advice. The student had only been in Australia for one semester.

Ireland does not have a single university in the world's top 100. If we are to enter those ranks, we must focus on more than just the junior certificate, numeracy and literacy. We must move on to the leaving certificate and overhaul the entire system.

I congratulate the Minister. He should keep up the good work.

I join with colleagues in welcoming the Minister to the House. There are many nice aspects to being in Seanad Éireann, but one of the nicer ones is that no one is ever in the press gallery and few are in the public Gallery. It is like having a private audience with the Minister. He must forgive me if I take this opportunity to try to earwig him regarding a matter that is relevant to the reform of the early part of secondary school.

I have mentioned it previously, namely, that every student should do some science every year until the day he or she leaves school, hopefully not younger than approximately 18 years of age. It should not just be done by people who are good at science or will make their careers in science. It should also be done by those who will become poets, philosophers, trade union activists, public representatives and accountants. Everyone should do science because it is the language of the universe in which we live and provides the explanations for the phenomena that we see daily. The failure of an electorate or citizenry to be scientifically literate will pose colossal problems.

I was reminded of this issue when I read an extraordinary story from Italy that rang of Copernicus and Galileo. Six scientists have been arrested, face years in prison and may also face civil litigation for the crime of not being able to do something that no one can do, namely, predict earthquakes. This spoke profoundly-----

Their crime was to tell people not to worry and that there would not be one.

The Minister should examine the entire issue and the nuance of their statement. They stated that the data to date had not given a particular reason to be worried about an earthquake. This was not unreasonable. There are no data that can be used to predict earthquakes.

We live in a world in which nearly half of the citizens of the most powerful country with the largest economy believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, dinosaurs co-existed with humans, climate change is a vast, left-wing conspiracy, women possibly cannot get pregnant as a result of rape, vaccines cause autism, worrying about obesity in young children may cause eating disorders, there has been a vast outbreak of congenital malformations relating to the Chernobyl tragedy of approximately 30 years ago - we now know that that tragedy has caused zero congenital malformations in the 27 or so years since its occurrence - homosexuality is a learned behaviour and one can become infected by having gay teachers, cancer is caused by a variety of different factors, schizophrenia is caused by one's mother giving one conflicted views, etc. A great deal of bad policy can arise from having a citizenry that does not know about science and the scientific method.

When I recently gave a talk at one of the Dublin festivals related to the innovation fair, I made the case for thoughtfulness and the use of the scientific method in areas that were not scientific. It is the ability to leave ideologies and beliefs at the door, examine the facts and try to reach conclusions. Our citizenry would be more rational, better informed and less prone to bizarre ideas if they understood science and its beauty instead of viewing it as something that must be turgidly learned, for example, repeating the periodic table of elements or the structure of DNA, information that is probably only relevant to people who will need it at career level. They must understand the method of science and that it is not an obscure act practised by people in white coats. Science is all around us everyday.

All education, including the junior certificate course, should have a strong foundation in the scientific method. To show that I am not a hard-hearted man, I also believe it essential and a cornerstone of the education system that everyone who finishes school should be able to speak and read at least one contemporary language other than their native language. People need the core academic skills of English, maths, sciences and at least one language. I wish the Minister all the best in his attempts to reform this and other parts of the curriculum.

The Minister is welcomed every time someone rises, but it is all true. I am sorry that Senator Reilly is not present, but I was reminded of a panel at which we both spoke during the general election. Someone tweeted about her age and suggested that she stay home and do her homework. I defended her afterwards. Regardless of her age, she was entitled to be there, etc. Perhaps I should withdraw my defence. I defended her because someone attacked her for being so young, and now I have been reminded of precisely how young she is.

Much about the framework for the junior cycle is to be welcomed, but much must be done. The framework recommends that first year be about progress, second year be about purpose and third year be about product. The Minister stated that first year students often lose out and do not make the progress they ought to. Indeed, some regress. To prevent this from occurring, what will be put in place to ensure that the bridge between primary and secondary levels is strengthened? One cannot catch all children, but a concern has been expressed in the framework document and needs to be addressed.

Where does the voice of young people appear in this reform? It can be difficult, given the number of stakeholders and groups involved in organising any reform. It is always brave to be the agent of change.

I wish to ask about the manner of the teaching. People learn differently. In particular, males learn more from doing, that is, the kinesthetic style of learning. How will the brave new world of the junior certificate reform take cognisance of this fact? Will this style of learning as well as visual learning be emphasised further? Many young males lose out because the style of teaching has traditionally favoured young females.

The list of available subjects does not include IT. I am sure there is a reason, but forgive me if I am wrong. I see technology on the list, but I do not know whether that includes IT, particularly in terms of programming. Many young people are good at, and interested in, this area.

Recently, the House's public consultation committee discussed lifestyles in terms of preventing cancers. Lifestyle is about what we eat and the amount of exercise we take. The issue of physical education has been raised with the Minister. Consider the stark figures - some 300,000 children in Ireland, a figure that increases by 10,000 per year, are considered overweight and obese. We cannot ignore this issue. Dealing with it will require a joined-up Government approach. The Minister is not responsible for health, but a hand-in-hand approach must be taken. I am not wondering about making physical education compulsory, but about making it a subject. Sport incorporates a broad field, for example, sports technology, sports management, sports nutrition, teaching and training, sports marketing, etc. Many young children are keenly interested in sport, but they do it alongside their academic activities. Can sport be included as a subject?

Music and art are subjects, but can they be enhanced? They play to children's creative sides. Those of us with children want to nurture and nurture them and know the importance of that part of their brains. Some parents struggle to provide such extracurricular activities due to the high cost.

My next point is on being well. Senator Power referred to it and I have discussed it with the Minister in terms of bullying, self-esteem and the need for counsellors. I hope that we are encouraging teachers not to teach subjects, but to teach children. In the teaching of children, where do we include being well? Is it a large plank of the Minister's reforms?

Is there a possibility of ambassadors for learning? These would be a group which young people like, such as sports personalities or writers. Is there a way to engage with them so they can interact with schools? There has been a very successful maths week, with hundreds of thousands of children taking part, and it has been described as the biggest maths week in the world. That is brilliant and what we like to see, as children love to engage in that kind of once-off but exciting activity. Ambassadors may help in a couple of other ways, and as Senator Crown mentioned science, we might have science ambassadors along with writing ambassadors, for example. A panel of such people should be properly organised and not be ad hoc. I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope he keeps up the good work.

I welcome the Minister to the House to discuss this very important topic. I will begin with a quote from a man who would know much about education and failure within the system, the former governor of Mountjoy, Mr. John Lonergan. He stated that we teach our children how to make a living but we do not teach them how to live. In reforming the junior certificate cycle I fear we are continuing that process. We are sending our children to school for 14 or 15 years, teaching them subjects like French, Irish, English and history, and we expect that at the end, they will be able to speak French, Irish and English. Nevertheless, we do not teach them how to be active citizens. Having sent them through the education system for 14 or 15 years, we wonder why children are not active citizens, why they do not vote or wish to participate in politics and public life, or why they are not involved in their local communities.

As other Senators have pointed out, why are children not healthy? This country has a significant rate of suicide. There will be short courses on civics, social and personal education, CSPE, as well as health education. Mr. Lonergan has seen all the failures in our education and society coming through his doors because people probably did not have the benefit of great parents like me and others in this House, who taught us at home how to be active citizens and have good mental health. He has seen those failures and education must take up that role. Short courses are a step in the right direction but they are peripheral. We are continuing the mistake of teaching children how to be economic units of production and make a living while failing to teach them how to live. As we have seen with the surging rate of suicide in the country, education can play a pivotal role in teaching children how to deal with depression or spot early warning signs of suicide in friends.

Harvard has a saying that if something is not being measured, it is not being done. Short courses will not be measured by examination. The Minister inherited a system driven by exams and points and it cannot be changed overnight. We must start measuring CSPE all the way up, making sure children know there will be an exam on the topic. There should be a similar process with health education, because if there is not, teachers will not be very engaged. They will go through the system but the benefits can be hit or miss, depending on the school.

I go back to using the points system against itself. When I did the leaving certificate, it was all about points, which led to people getting into university. The points system dictated the course a person would get. The Minister in looking to reform the leaving certificate and the junior certificate could look to active citizenship, which is the most important element of a society. It should not just be about economic units of production. Pádraig Pearse described the education system 100 years ago as the "murder machine" and although it is much improved since, we are still teaching children just to be economic units of production.

The Minister might consider an active citizenship subject that could be an optional extra for the leaving certificate. If a student took the subject, the marks would extend to seven subjects and there would be additional points for the total. Perhaps it could be an additional 50 points, with most of the subject covered in the first year of the programme, with a practical element in the final year. We should focus the minds of students on being active citizens. Short courses are valuable but Mr. Lonergan would point out that his experience in Mountjoy Prison indicates a failure of our education system, and we must put active citizenship at the core rather than the periphery of our education system. In that way our children and future generations would become the citizens they should be rather than economic units of production.

Senator Daly mentioned the Harvard saying that if something is not being measured, it is not being done. As somebody who had the great privilege of attending Harvard as a student for a period, I know another great phrase is "bringing the best" from people in every sense. That sums up what the Minister is trying to achieve with this new framework for the junior certificate. I was in the last year to do the old inter certificate. At that time we felt somewhat cheated that this new junior certificate was to be introduced in the following year, solving all the problems. It did not do so and even with the best of schools, 10% of the population has a difficulty with literacy and numeracy. That is 10% too many in a country that prides itself on having one of the best education systems in the world. We may have had it at one time but the fact has been diminished.

One in every three pupils may have difficulties with literacy and numeracy in disadvantaged schools. That is a shameful statistic for any country in the modern world. I agree with much of Senator Daly's contribution and we are very fortunate to have a Minister who is totally committed to all elements in society. The worst aspect of our education system is a process of cramming in the last number of weeks before a set of exams, or the grind schools which have mushroomed over Ireland to cram the information into students for regurgitation. Unfortunately, the system has moved to third level institutions. When I was in college we had exams once a year during the summer but I am thankful that many of the colleges and universities now have continuous assessment. The University of Limerick was one of the first to embrace the notion of continuous assessment and is one of the most successful universities in terms of graduates gaining employment. Other universities are also moving in that direction.

This new framework is radical, like the Minister, and we should not be surprised. There will be continuous assessment and the parents will have a paramount responsibility, along with teachers and school management. Society will also be involved. With those elements playing a part, we will have a more holistic education system. We need an analytical education system, where a student can analyse and argue a point as opposed to regurgitating information. That is not learning.

That is not what our education system should be about. We should be equipping young people to be able to analyse life critically and whatever situation they are in. That is educating them for life.

I agree with previous speakers who said this framework needs to be extended to the leaving certificate. We cannot have a situation where one examination effectively dictates the career paths of young people. If they get the points, they may do something to which they are not suited. If they do not get the points, they will end up spending a year of their life repeating the leaving certificate to get into a course which may not suit them. Some universities have said this system is not working and have introduced alternative admissions policies. We need to reform the leaving certificate radically as well.

In a points driven examination situation, the people who suffer most are the vulnerable and those with disabilities who may not be able to compete in that type of pressure cooker environment. Their true talents and abilities would shine in a continuous assessment scenario. Continuous assessment is the way to go if it is done properly and if the proper structures are in place to ensure its credibility is beyond reproach. I believe that will be achieved. We are moving into a period in Irish education which will be exciting and challenging and which will restore our reputation as one of the best places in the world to learn.

There has been much talk about radical reform but I am concerned that many children will have been in the system for ten to 12 years and that some of them will have been well and truly abandoned by the time they get to the junior certificate. Senator Barrett spoke about primary education being the core while others spoke about teaching children to read and, once they are able to read, teaching them how to learn.

I am concerned about abandonment, which I have raised in this House on a number of occasions. I do not know how many schools there are in the State - I realise I am stretching beyond the remit of these statements but it is the only opportunity I will have to put this to the Minister - but a number of schools which should have DEIS status do not have it on the basis of legacy decisions going back to 2005. Those schools have all the social ills and difficulties required for DEIS status but they did not get the status for whatever reason. I do not want to get into a big debate about the gerrymandering that went on and who got what, about which the Minister knows and which happened mid-way through the previous decade.

What is the Minister going to do about it? He has the opportunity in the upcoming budget to do something about this. To do nothing would suggest he is not a reforming Minister. I put this to him in a particularly hard manner for one reason, namely, there is one of those schools in the area in which I live and which I have discussed with him. It is taking the same cuts as the schools in the leafy middle class suburbs which are capable of taking some, or most, of those cuts. The schools about which I am talking that should have DEIS status cannot take the cuts which have been, and may be, made. Something must be done in the budget in order that these schools are not ignored and abandoned.

There is social deprivation in this particular area, of which the Minister is aware, but this school is losing home-school-community liaison teachers and is taking the same cuts as schools in comfortable areas. That is reprehensible. Many plaudits were thrown at the Minister in this debate, and rightly so, but on this occasion, nothing has happened and I have been banging this drum for the best part of ten months. To say nothing happened is incorrect in that the cuts the schools were told were coming have all come. Those schools simply cannot absorb those cuts and reductions.

I hope the Minister will do something about it. I will not drop this issue and Senators will have heard me raise it on the Order of Business on several occasions. I will be the first person to support the Minister if he has to make other cuts in other areas because I know of the economic difficulty we face. I expect this to be cost neutral to the Department. If the Minister does this, he will have my full support even though there will be an impact on many other schools. The Minister and the Department must not be allowed to continue to abandon those schools that do not have but which should have DEIS status and which need something from him and his Department.

I thank the 13 Senators who spoke in this debate for their comments and for the general support I have received from Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, the Independents and my Government colleagues. There is much meat in the document, and I will not repeat it now, but I want to focus on literacy and numeracy and then on the actual junior certificate and how it will be rolled out.

As Senator Power said, the literacy and numeracy levels were a wake-up call and it was recognised by the Department. Work had begun on a strategy before I became Minister and I have acknowledged that elsewhere and do so again now. It is systematically looking at learning outcomes at certain stages - second class, fourth class, sixth class and second year - on literacy and mathematics, or numeracy. There will also be a science dimension. That testing in second year, at approximately age 14, will be one of the four components that will feed into the school report which will come at the end of third year and which will have three other components to it.

There will be the assessment of project work. I note many Senators used the phrase "continuous assessment" but it is more project-based assessment rather than continuous assessment. This was brought to my attention by one of the teachers' representatives on the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment as misleading and, in some cases, creating a certain concern, so it is project assessment which, in most cases, comprises 40% and which is done over second year and third year. The examinations will be set by the State Examinations Commission in the first instance and then, over time, as we see how much confidence there is in the system, they will probably be set by the school itself. As I said, the State Examinations Commission will set the papers for the eight to ten subjects a student will do. The reason I went from eight to ten was to provide a wider range of choice. Two short courses can make up a full course or a full subject.

The fourth component of the assessment will be the normal school assessment which will try to capture all the things the examination does not, for example, the ability of the student to interact, his or her communication skills and what he or she has done in terms of music, sport, leadership, debating, communications or articulation. All of those things will form part of it.

I will not go through the individual contributions Senators have made but we know from experience, and many Senators have rephrased this, that the most popular teacher in first year is the teacher who teaches all around the subject, who actually brings it to life and who makes it interesting. By sixth year, or even third year, that teacher becomes the most unpopular because they are not teaching to the test. We know the whole culture alienates certain kinds of young people, a high cohort of which are working class boys. In many cases, the environment of the school and the way subjects are taught, as Senator O'Keeffe said, appeals more to a different kind of mentality and has those sorts of outcomes we have seen.

While the NCCA produced a good document, which I have endorsed from an education and pedagogic point of view, the main issue we had to get our heads around was how we locked that into a terminal in an examination. The decision not to have a high stakes State examination frees up three years and transition year where many of the proposals Members mentioned could be achieved. We will watch and measure and there will be standards.

For example, I refer to the concern expressed by Senator Barrett and others about a teacher being biased in third year. We will ask them to do what they do in second and fifth years in third year. In so far as there will be bias in this regard, that will be a problem for the school. We will also through the State examination system and the Department, send them the average results in a subject and we will outline to the schools how they are faring against average school performance. We will develop this in consultation with them. They will have their own results. A three-stream school will probably have 90 pupils. It will get results on the way it marks them and we will be able to show how that compares with the national average and whether they are in the band, above it or below it. In principle, this is what we will do. We are proceeding to work out the detail as to how we do it.

The second most important question was why it will take such a long time. We will start with the cohort going into the junior cycle in September 2014. Three years later they will do a different English examination and we will bring in other subjects over the following four years based on the capacity of the system to absorb the change and the experience we have had with Project Maths. We will review it all along the line.

I refer to the concerns expressed about whether this will change student behaviour and whether this will enable students to learn. We had a great deal of discussion in the Department about this and I believe it will totally change the dynamic within the system in that the dread felt by young people going into third year because they have to sit the junior certificate which they treat as a dress rehearsal for the leaving certificate will disappear. Between first and fourth years, including transition year, there will be a space within which one can come of age as a young person. We have all been through that. By the time a pupil leaves sixth class, he or she is a big person on the edge of adulthood in some cases. He or she is towering over the four year olds in the playground and moves from a school in which the teachers come to him or her generally in a fixed room and from a relatively small building to the equivalent of a shopping mall where on the hour, every hour crowds rush out into the corridors and everyone knows where they are going except the pupil and everybody is bigger. It is like snakes and ladders with the pupil at the bottom. As adults and parents, we know some young people do not make that transition satisfactorily and, therefore, as Senator O'Keeffe said, it is not just about teaching subjects. History teachers have as much responsibility for literacy as English teachers. Trying to instill that in the system is part of the role of leadership within the school system and necessitates teachers themselves changing.

When we were designing the literacy and numeracy strategy, there was a recognition that initial teacher education was incomplete and had to a certain extent lost its way, more time needed to be provided in this regard and the additional time should be focused on pedagogic skills. We need that at both primary and secondary level for teachers but we also need it for university lecturers. They have to learn how to teach as well. Their brilliant qualifications are not of themselves an indication that they are good communicators or teachers. I am examining the education system in a holistic way. This is a specific reform, which will inevitably transform the leaving certificate. It will be also be transformed from another direction. We are into detailed negotiations and discussions with university heads about the changing the foundation course approach in the third level sector.

Professor Áine Hyland's paper is available on transition.ie. She examined what happened over the past 15 to 20 years. The number of undergraduate courses in the third level sector, particularly in universities, increased by 300%. Universities are basically like football teams. They want the best players or students and they have constructed the courses in such a way that pupils get feedback saying they need 500 points to law in college X or university Y. They never indicate in many cases, although they are required to, how many places are available for a course such as law and German or law and Sanskrit. That debate has started with the third level administrators and while I do not want to anticipate the outcome, we are moving to a position where the first year for most people in third level will have an element of foundation about it. For example, in engineering in UCD, with which I am familiar, students do a basic foundation course in engineering in first year and it is only at the end of that year that they decide to become a mechanical, electrical or civil engineer. Professor Hyland cited the University of Melbourne. The specialisation of courses at an early stage is a phenomenon in the English speaking world, which is not unique to Ireland. In Melbourne, they have reverted to eight or ten foundation courses across the menu of options it has and people travel through that.

Members referred to the reaction of the teachers' unions to this issue and said they were not consulted. My brothers and sisters in the labour movement and in the unions have an understanding that consultation means negotiation. We are not negotiating about the destination. We are going for a new junior certificate examination and it is my responsibility as Minister to take the best advice available, which I obtained within the Department and from the NCCA, to evaluate the options and to examine how the new curriculum can be implemented. As I have said repeatedly, including at the NAPD conference in Galway last Friday, this is where we want to go. We will take eight years to get there and, therefore, there is no rush, unlike what happened in Britain where by trying to implement a quick fix in their system, irreparable damage has been done, according to the specialist journals in the area. We will consult all concerned, including the unions, about how to implement the passage to the destination we want to reach. This is not a political project in one sense. It is an intensely ideological political project in that we are trying to reform education but it is not an electoral project. There will be at least two general elections in the eight years it will take to implement this process. It is much more important to get it right than to meet an arbitrary deadline. The Department examined its own experience and the advice is that with the time provided we will meet the deadline. The time required will give us the necessary space in which to deal with legitimate concerns people have and to develop responses to the queries and questions that have been raised. By reforming the junior cycle component of second level, which is probably the weakest link in the education system, there will be an inevitable impact on transition year and the final two years in school during which there will be a proper State matriculation, leaving certificate type examination. More than 60% of our young people take on some form of third level engagement.

Senator Barrett referred to the question of Irish language learning. That is an issue for another day and there is only so much change one can mobilise at any one time. I was sent a copy of an interesting new book by Donal Flynn about the history of the language revival movement and where we are now.

I thank Senator Reilly for Sinn Féin's support.

Everyone spoke about the tragedy that is our literacy and numeracy standards. We cannot be complacent about it. Senator Averil Power referred to the resources made available. We will save some money from the State Examination Commission but we will spend more in terms of resourcing pupils and teachers through continual professional development, working with the Teaching Council and a number of measures in that area. The proposed cost of the literacy and numeracy strategy, including the changes in initial teacher education, is €19 million over a period of time. In that context, I saved €3 million by closing down the pilot project for modern languages in 500 primary schools out of our 3,200 schools. It was not recommended to be mainstreamed by the NCCA after being in existence for 12 years.

The NCCA did not reckon it was worth mainstreaming. We hope our primary school teachers, who now study for four years and who are coming from the top 15% of leaving certificate results, will have at least one modern continental language and will be able to teach it as primary school teachers so that we do not need dedicated primary school language teachers. We would like to move in that direction.

With regard to initial teacher education at secondary level, we are not yet developed in terms of what we want to happen but my personal political view is that someone who wants to qualify as a secondary school teacher should have an experience of teaching across the spectrum rather than being the bright young boy or girl in school, going to university, doing an arts degree, coming back as a local hero to the school when undertaking teaching experience and going on to teach in that school. It is too incestuous and there are serious problems for secondary school teachers in terms of the nature of the school contract at second level. These are issues I want to discuss with the joint managerial body, JMB, and others because the career path is not as clear in second level for teachers of subjects as it is for primary school teachers in the primary school system. The attraction of good teachers into the secondary school system is a key component of reform of the junior certificate.

I have covered the points raised by the Senators. On the question of science, Senator Crown is correct. The tea party phenomenon that is part of the United States and the creationist museum in one of the southern states of the US, where there is a saddle on a dinosaur to indicate that they were contemporaneous inhabitants of the earth, is hard to credit and hard to understand but is not confined to the United States. The teaching of evolution based on evidence does not happen in large sections of the world. Science is a critical component.

We are trying to examine the capacity within our schools, with 730 post-primary schools. The new ones we are building have a population of 800 to 1,000, which provides us with a critical mass that enables schools to provide subject choice at higher and ordinary level, the required support services, the school orchestra, for example, and an array of sporting activities and the arts. These are the elements that produce the kind of rounded young person we want to have, confident in themselves and able to look after themselves from the age of 15 or 16. We are trying to achieve that through the reform of the junior certificate, which we do not yet have a name for but which will evolve. We are doing so in two ways, by articulating the curriculum the NCCA developed over a long period, and by deliberately removing the junior certificate State exam, which has a distorting effect on behaviour, from mock exams at Easter to the outcome. It exists to the extent that youngsters, including my son, who is now in his leaving certificate year, automatically convert results into points. When he emerged with his junior certificate results, he told me how many points the results represented. That is the distorting effect and it is distorting the way teachers perform because they are required to get results. Parents and schools demand results and this creates a backwash effect, which prevents the wider spectrum of young people, whose needs our current system of education does not address adequately. With the implementation of this, the changes we can begin to negotiate in the leaving certificate, in tandem with and in parallel to this eight year journey, will allow us to radically improve the second level experience.

Finishing with an anecdote, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and I went to a photocall for the Gathering in one of the schools in Marlborough Street. Young children were writing to their relatives to encourage them to come to Ireland for the first time. Instead of the normal configuration of tables in a primary school, for those Members familiar with it, the desks were set out in serried rows. I asked the deputy principal of the school why the desks were assembled in this fashion. One of the aides or PR people explained that a photographer was present and they wanted it to look like a real school. Real schools at primary school level have abandoned serried ranks and there are now clusters of four and five children facing each other and learning together in group learning and discussion. The problem exists at second level, where students sit in ranks and rows. The culture in primary school is more developed and more advanced than at second level. This measure will go a long way towards achieving that. We will monitor it and consult and inform as we go along. No one has a monopoly on wisdom and we are open to full and comprehensive consultation on how to get where we want to go. The destination is not up for negotiation.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Top
Share