Vol. 466 No. 1
I move:
That Dáil Éireann declares its commitment to maintaining history and geography as core subjects on the junior certificate curriculum in second level schools and calls on the Government to amend the White Paper on Education entitled, Charting our Future, to include history and geography as core subjects in the junior certificate curriculum.
I propose to share my time with Deputy Mary Coughlan.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I move this motion to send a clear signal to the general public that Dáil Éireann is totally committed to maintaining history and geography as core subjects on the junior certificate curriculum, and calls on the Minister for Education to give effect to this by amending the White Paper on Education to include history and geography as core subjects on that curriculum. There is a clear need for this to be done, given what has happened since the publication of the White Paper. The Minister for Education has attempted to evade this issue in the past number of months and to confuse the public on what exactly happened regarding history and geography.
This debate arose because of the content of the White Paper relating to the junior certificate curriculum. The Green Paper, Education for a Changing World, particularly the section dealing with the junior certificate curriculum, contrasts with the White Paper in its treatment of history and geography. The Green Paper clearly states in its preamble that the primary objective of the junior cycle is that students should complete a broad and balanced course of study in a variety of subjects relevant to their personal development, the world of work and the enjoyment of their leisure and recreation, and also that broadly based programmes must be made available for all the students at levels appropriate to their abilities.
Specifically, the authors of the Green Paper took on board the advice of the NCCA that the programme for all students should include the following as core subjects: Irish, English, mathematics, history and geography or environmental and social studies, which combines elements of history, geography, social and political education and science or a technological subject. Clearly, history and geography were to be core subjects on the junior certificate curriculum, and the authors of the Green Paper had received position papers from the NCCA advising such a course of action. It is extraordinary that in a recent speech on this subject the Minister still talked about receiving advice from the NCCA, despite the fact that she received such advice on two occasions, and on both occasions the NCCA recommended that history and geography should remain as core subjects on the junior certificate curriculum.
The situation changed dramatically in the White Paper on Education, Charting our Educational Future, which was published over a year ago. It states that the objective of the junior certificate programme is to provide breadth and balance and a curriculum that is both relevant and appropriate to the aptitudes and abilities of all students. What is striking about the White Paper's treatment of the junior certificate curriculum is its failure to mention history and geography in any context. Clearly, the status of history and geography is substantially and significantly reduced in the White Paper. This is significantly different treatment from that given in the Green Paper. More significantly, the White Paper states that the curricular framework as outlined will apply to all second level schools and to all students in the junior cycle. This is an important point because in all her replies to parliamentary questions on this issue to date the Minister has been at pains to make the point that history and geography are compulsory only in secondary schools but are not compulsory in vocational and comprehensive schools.
The White Paper is a policy document which has been endorsed by the Government. Decisions have been made on the policy framework for the development of the curriculum at junior cycle and applies to all second level schools irrespective of their title. The White Paper develops this point when it states:
For the purposes of certification the following specific requirements will be necessary. The Programme for all students at junior cycle will include a core of Irish, English, mathematics, science or a technological subject, and at least three further subjects from a wide range of full courses and short courses. All students should have access to the study of a modern European language and to have a recognised full course in at least one creative or performing art form.
History or geography is not mentioned in this paragraph nor anywhere in the entire section of the White Paper dealing with the junior certificate curriculum. The White Paper further states that each school will be expected to provide students with experience in the following areas: language and literature; mathematical studies; science and technology; civic, social and political education; arts education; religious education; guidance counselling and pastoral care; physical education; health education (including personal and social development), relationships and sexuality education. Neither history nor geography is mentioned. It is important to emphasise that point. The Minister is trying to give the impression that there is no reason to worry, that the status of history and geography was not changed, but neither history nor geography is mentioned in the section of the White Paper dealing with the junior certificate curriculum. That is what rang alarm bells among history and geography teachers and gave rise to the campaign that has been ongoing for some time.
There is no doubt in my mind that in the White Paper the Minister for Education clearly attempted to eliminate history and geography from the core curriculum and significantly reduce its status on the curriculum. How otherwise can she explain the omission of any reference to history and geography in that section of the White Paper? Surely the intent was clear, and the Minister should be honest about it. There has been too much evasion and dishonesty in the Minister's approach to this issue. Of late, she has attempted to row back and reverse the policy decision, but the White Paper clearly signalled a change.
When I tabled a parliamentary question on this matter on 20 February 1996 the Minister acknowledged that the White Paper did not specifically mention history or geography within the group of subjects in the core curriculum but offered the opinion that the vast majority of schools would be likely to continue to offer these subjects. In reply to that question the Minister pointed out that 740 out of a total of 772 second level schools currently offer history and geography at junior certificate level. Why then did the Minister omit them from the White Paper? Clearly she had signalled a change of approach and indicated that history and geography would no longer remain as core subjects on the junior certificate curriculum. That is why our motion is so important.
We should be clear about the status of the White Paper. It represents a policy decision by the Government. In relation to its treatment of history and geography, that decision needs to be reversed and the White Paper amended. That is why I have tabled the motion in the language I have, calling for the amendment of the White Paper and to include history and geography as core subjects in the junior certificate curriculum. A clear Government decision should be taken. It should be open and transparent, without clever ambiguities, fudging or an attempt to confuse.
It is clear from the White Paper that other subjects are given considerable prominence which are not currently core subjects. Did the Minister, for example, envisage replacing history and geography with political education, with the creative arts, or an extra modern language? We need more openness in terms of what the Minister intended to achieve via the White Paper in relation to the junior certificate curriculum. It is regrettable there has been no fundamental debate in this House on curriculum issues apart from the debate on the White Paper. Fianna Fáil believes that history and geography are extremely important broad based subjects that for very valid reasons should form part of the core curriculum.
History is a broadly based subject. It is extremely important for any society to know about its past and to preserve its cultural and linguistic heritage. It is more important for countries such as Ireland where the preservation of cultural identity is very important given that to a certain degree we have lost our linguistic identity. History has formed an important part of our cultural heritage. Young people need to know about their past. We need to learn from the mistakes and achievements of the past, but, more important in my opinion as a former history teacher, history opens up many other opportunities for young people. It is an interdisciplinary subject. Through history many young people have learned for the first time about the wonders of the world of literature, art, drama and so on.
Many young students first learn of Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper or Michelangelo's Mona Lisa, the Sistine Chapel and the wonders of the Renaissance through the junior certificate history class. Studying history at junior certificate level broadens the horizons of many young people and facilitates their study of other countries, cultures and developments throughout the ages. History leads to a greater understanding of different communities. Many students first learn about famous writers, the great achievements in science and economics in the history class. Industrial and agricultural development and so on is embraced by history. History embraces the totality of the life experience of human kind and in that sense it is particularly appropriate for a foundation course and for facilitating the broadly based development of a young person, the fundamental objective of the junior certificate programme as outlined in the White Paper.
Very often the methodology for teaching history can contain an interdisciplinary approach. History is not simply taught only in lecture-style context. Many students have discovered their local town, city or communities through the study of local history, through simply walking around the local areas and discovering local monuments, the history of streets and the folklore of a given area. The study of local history develops tremendous civic pride and awareness and a practical patriotism, which is so important to the development of society. In short, history is a broad based subject which embraces many different disciplines and opens up many opportunities for young people in terms of further study and interests.
Geography likewise is an extremely crucial subject at a critical formative level in a student's education. Professor William Smith, a Professor of Geography at UCC summed up the outstanding qualities of geography in a letter to The Irish Times on Monday, 27 May in the following terms:
Geography is a long-established subject which is concerned with the complex relationships between societies and their environments. Young students find in geography a discipline which explores the nature of lived environments, in their own localities, regionally, nationally and at European and the global levels. It is by definition a down-to-earth subject concerned with key human concerns of the late 20th century such as landscape appreciation and environmental management, economic, social and the regional development, Ireland's place in a changing Europe, Third World issues and the consequences of the globalisation of economies for all our lives. It is also a subject that familiarise young students with the political geography of international relations and conflicts.
Another interesting letter in The Irish Times on Monday pointed out that TDs perhaps found geography a very useful subject when it came to discovering the nooks and crannies of townlands and polling districts. Professor Smith further points out that geography in particular will assist young Irish people to acquire a keen awareness of their national and European heritage and identity coupled with a global awareness and respect and care for the environment. One has only to look at the bibliography at the end of geography books to see the broad range of subjects and disciplines that are embraced by the subject of geography. Geography communicates to students ways of seeing and understanding the world which transcends the different divisions between the natural and human sciences.
Through geography, students learn to use maps, diagrams and photographs as a means of presenting and interpreting information about places. There is much practical work involved in geography. Many social skills are required for field work projects and so on. Modern technology applications also form a key part of present geographical study. Computer applications are well developed. Professor Smith is correct when he says he finds it astonishing that the Minister for Education has seen fit to go against the recommendations of the NCCA and many educational bodies in seeking to marginalise geography and history at the junior cycle.
The ASTI in its recent publication clearly reaffirmed its commitment to the retention of history and geography as core subjects on the curriculum. The ASTI representatives at the course committee of the NCCA made their views quite clearly known on the previous occasions that the NCCA addressed this subject.
I know, of course, that the Geographical Society of Ireland has made a very comprehensive submission to the Minister for Education on the value of geography in the junior certificate curriculum. This society represents a broad based constituency, which includes professional geographers, teachers and the general public, including many professional planners whose training is in geography. At its recent annual general meeting grave reservations were expressed on the treatment of geography and history in the White Paper, Charting our Education Future. Its submission cited the United States of America as an important example of a society which is recognised as having an unacceptably high level of geographical illiteracy as a result of the diminished status given to geography in the school curriculum for several decades.
US educators are now having to devote substantial resources to remedy the situation. They argue validity that it would be very unfortunate if Ireland were to devalue geography at a time when educators elsewhere are allocating major resources to re-establish the subject within their school curriculum. The society in its letter to the Minister requested to discuss its concerns. I hope the Minister would in addition to discussing the issue with the NCCA meet the History Teachers Association and the various representatives of the subject of geography. That is true democracy and it is important that their concerns are heard by the Minister and not by a programme manager.
The History Teachers Association has been engaged in a very effective campaign on this issue. I met with the history association as far back as last February. It was the association which initially developed the debate on the campaign and great credit is due to it on its success in forcing the Minister to gradually reverse her earlier policy decision. However, it is extremely important that the Minister be quite specific in her commitment in the House this evening. Clearly she must indicate that she will amend the White Paper on Education to include history and geography. The White Paper states on page 48:
The programme for all students at junior cycle will include a core of Irish, English, Mathematics...
We are asking the Minister to include "History, Geography, Science Technology...". We want to have it clearly stated that history and geography are included in that section of the White Paper. There is a need to do this because there is widespread concern about the bona fides of the Minister in this regard. The Minister issued a statement last weekend to the Irish Committee for Historical Sciences in which some progression from earlier statements was made. I suspect that the fact that we tabled this Private Members' motion last Friday was a fillip to the Minister, an incentive to her to accelerate the row back and the reversal of policy she has been engaged in for some time.
It is quite clear that the Minister's Government colleagues have been urging her to pursue such a course of action. I read the statement that was presented last week to the Committee for Historical Sciences and noted the degree of ambivalance and ambiguity in it. While it represents some progression, it needs to be tied down more specifically. In her statement the Minister attempted to reassure her audience that she has not changed the status of history and geography as core subjects in the junior cycle. The point is, however, that the White Paper certainly creates a new framework which essentially reduces significantly the status of these subjects.
The Minister also stated that she recently requested the NCCA to respond as a matter of priority to the debate on the broad issue of the junior certificate curriculum. The NCCA has made a number of recommendations to this and previous Ministers, in all cases recommending history and geography as core parts of the curriculum. The Minister said that once the NCCA has completed its report, it is her intention to make a series of recommendations to her Government colleagues on the junior cycle core curriculum, including her commitment to the retention of the study of history and geography in that curriculum. What does this statement mean? Does it mean that history and geography retain the status they currently enjoy in second level schools in terms of their time-table, space and so forth? Are we talking about short courses or modules which will be fitted into a broader curriculum? Will the Minister become more flexible about the core curriculum, make a broad statement about what it involves and include a whole range of subjects with the result that history and geography will have a lower status than they currently enjoy? I have spoken to many history and geography teachers since the Minister's statement last weekend and they are extremely concerned about this point. They are anxious that the current status of history and geography in the curriculum be retained as they are. We do not want any clever manipulation of the situation.
It is incredible to hear the Minister say she will advise her Government colleagues on the junior cycle core curriculum. What is the actual status of the White Paper? This was meant to be the definitive policy decision of the Government with regard to the development of education. I know it was rushed through the Cabinet and it is obvious that the Minister's colleagues did not read it. I would guess that there was no discussion by the Cabinet on the status of history and geography in the core curriculum. The White Paper was rushed through because the Minister had difficulties with the teachers' unions at that time. There were political reasons the members of the Cabinet nodded their heads in approval of the White Paper. The Minister for Finance stated he was not going to provide extra resources for it so it did not really matter. The Minister is going to advise her colleagues on the junior certificate curriculum a year after the Governments definitive policy statement was published. This makes no sense and calls into question the procedural propriety of what the Minister is doing in terms of the White Paper. The Green Paper was a discussion document, the White Paper was the policy document clearly outlining the Government policy on a wide range of issues, including the junior cycle curriculum.
The Minister's approach to this issue has created considerable anger throughout the country. People from a wide variety of backgrounds, not just history and geography, have complained about the Minister's treatment of these subjects. In every walk of life people have expressed anger at any intention by any Minister to eliminate history and geography as core subjects on the curriculum. Many people who would not be academically inclined have seen the value of history and geography in their own lives and are very much opposed to the policy views of the Minister as outlined in the White Paper. Teachers of history and geography have felt affronted and devalued by the Minister's approach.
In many respects career choices are changing because of the Minister's announcement. Young history and geography teachers are unsure as to their future, given the cloud hanging over their subject because of the Minister's comments. Parents have contacted me and asked of it would be advisable for their young sons or daughters to pursue history and geography in universities because of the contents of the White Paper. Considerable anger, doubt and confusion have been created by the Minister. The entire issue has been handled in a most incompetent manner.
The Minister has attempted, following an effective campaign by all concerned, to reverse the situation. We welcome this. No doubt some of her Government colleagues had been privately assuring the various interests that her views were not shared by them. Some have apparently expressed horror at the Minister's intentions. Clearly her statement last weekend is a response to the promptings from her colleagues in Government, both from her own party and the other two parties which form part of the Government.
We in Fianna Fáil felt it was necessary to introduce this motion to ensure that a debate takes place on this issue and that the public interest and anger generated by it finds reflection in a constructive discussion in the House. Often the House stands accused of being somewhat irrelevant to developments outside and for not articulating accurately or effectively the views of the general public. Clearly it is important that these issues be discussed here, that the views of the general public find articulation here and that decisions follow from this debate which reflect the opinions of the vast majority of the Irish people. It is clear to me, following representations I have received from colleagues in the House, the general public and teachers of history and geography at second and third levels, that there is widespread opposition to the treatment of history and geography in the White Paper and to the Minister's intentions in this regard. There is widespread agreement that history and geography should remain as core subjects in the junior certificate curriculum. This is why we moved this motion.
Given the Minister's statement last weekend, we expect the Government to support the motion and facilitate its passage through the House. Dáil Éireann would then send a clear signal to the people that history and geography are essential to the development of a broadly based education for our young people. Accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.
Cé mhéad ama atá fágtha?
The Deputy has until 7.51 p.m. We lost 11 minutes as a result of the vote.
Do we lose that time now?
It can be picked up the week after next depending on the arrangements the House may decide.
I would prefer if Deputy Coughlan could be given ten minutes. I can arrange the time for my party's other speakers accordingly.
It appears that we will need to have a debate on education every week because of the frequency with which problems concerning education arise. The Minister has no vision as to the needs of our young people for the next millennium. There has been a litany of faux pas— exam papers have fallen off the backs of lorries and circulars are issued which drive teachers mad, insult them and suggest some of them do not even spend 15 hours each week on extra-curricular activities. There has been complete inaction on many issues.
We are now discussing an issue which has fundamentally rocked education. There is a serious and sinister reason for this issue not being covered in the White Paper and the Labour Party is accountable for this. The amendment states that the Minister welcomes the commitment to maintain the status of history and geography as core curriculum subjects in the junior cycle. However, these are not mentioned in the document. Therefore, the amendment is disingenuous and incorrect and I ask the Minister to withdraw it and accept our motion.
Why do we study history? People are their history. The obvious tried and tested arguments spring to mind — the need to foster a sense of belonging, our roots and our national identity. In a culture which is becoming increasingly multinational, where borders between countries are becoming less rigid and where the EU centres of power are rapidly becoming the decision making fora, for this nation the preserving of history is preserving its sense of national identity and this is ever more important. The idea that one can be Irish and European, the fact that one's culture can be important and yet inclusive and the ideal of racial tolerance, are all part of the rationale of a balanced history curriculum. For the student of the 1990s history is a must.
In the White Paper the Minister referred to the skills she believes young people should acquire — competence in literacy, numeracy and spoken language and various experiences in artistic, intellectual, scientific, physical and practical activity. All these are encompassed in the study of history and geography which young people should continue to be taught.
In history young people are taught how to extrapolate the relevant — perhaps the Minister should go back and repeat the course — and examine change. In geography they learn how to use maps, diagrams and photographs acquiring vital, practical and social skills, for example, through fieldwork. These are probably the less obvious skills which we do not normally think about, but they are ones we believe our young people should acquire. To remove history and geography from the curriculum for the sake of the technological subjects is wrong. One can be very good at woodwork and history; they are not incompatible. Skills acquired can be used throughout one's life and make one more flexible.
The argument has been made — and it has much credence — that the teaching of history perpetuates a polarised society. We, in Ireland, are often quoted as typical examples of fuelling the republican and Unionist divide. This is nonsense. It is essential that a true record of the past is presented. If the facts are not taught in a structured way, people may never learn them.
It is interesting that the Minister who is introducing a relationships and sexuality programme to change the behind the bicycle-shed attitudes to relationships and sexuality is at the same time suggesting that history does not need to be taught, as if somehow it will be transmitted in the playground or through the short courses and modules. That is ridiculous.
In an ever changing society, unfortunately, many of our young people are taught through the medium of television. This is a manipulative medium of communication. If young people do not acquire the skills to know the difference between fact and fiction, by not learning, say, geography and history in particular, their attitudes will be manipulated by television and, because they do not have the facts, they will not be able to decipher truth and reality.
Paradoxically, there has been an upsurge of interest in our history with many expressing a desire to go back to our roots. In terms of dress and music, people are trying to recreate the 1960s and earlier. Some are spending astronomical sums refurbishing old buildings. All this is part of our heritage.
Our language and history are what makes us different and unique. If young people are not made aware of our history, how will they be able to appreciate differences? At a time when money is being spent developing historical sites and there is enormous interest in our heritage and culture, it is unbelievable that it is being suggested that history in particular should not be a core subject. To sacrifice history and geography at the altar of technology is wrong.
The Minister clarified the matter because pressure was exerted by other members of the Cabinet who knew that this was the wrong path to take. The Labour Party in particular is making an attempt at social engineering. It is introducing programmes which are not wanted by the people. Because it does not like what is being taught, it seeks to change it.
I do not like what is being said.
This is a democratic assembly.
In relation to the Minister's proposals in regard to the teaching of the history of the 1850s, the 1960s and the 1970s, she should stop blaming the NCCA for her inaction. She does not have a notion about what is happening. I am glad we are having this debate and that history and geography teachers stood up for themselves and were able to persuade the Minister to change her mind. I commend them for this because if they had failed, their posts would no longer exist.
We are trying to amalgamate the French ideology of secularism and the German ideology of technology — during the debate on the Estimates the Minister said she did not agree with this — with elements of the American and British systems to create a new Irish system. The Irish system is fine. What the Minister needs — she has more resources at her disposal than any of her predecessors — is a vision. She has demoralised and lost the confidence of teachers, parents and pupils. That is what is wrong in education.
I agree with Deputy Martin. The Minister has deliberately tried to transfer responsibility for the decision to the NCCA. It recommended that history and geography should be retained as core subjects. That was also recommended in the Green Paper. The Minister said that she was asking the NCCA for its advice; since it was she who changed it, she should accept full responsibility for reversing the decision.
We should develop the ideas of young people to give them a start in life. That is, perhaps, the most important thing the State has to do. To take from them the standards of history, geography, Irish, English and mathematics is both wrong and disingenuous. We have to grapple with many problems. We have to consider the position of those who are unable to manage when they enter second level as well as the questions of early intervention programmes and support services to ensure young people are able to complete senior cycle, but we should not lower standards by removing two of the most important subjects, history and geography, from the core curriculum.
As a subject, Irish is being lost despite the resources and efforts being made to save it. We have been grappling with that problem for years. I do not want to see young people leaving school without proper skills in history and geography. It would be a shame if scouts could not read a map or do orienteering. We should not preclude them, even at the age of 15 or 16, from choosing the option of architecture or town planning, yet they are not able to make such choices. History and geography do not push students into narrow sectors but allow them to develop. Those subjects are fundamental to the school system. Full clarification in the form of an amendment to the White Paper is required from the Minister.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann endorses the commitment in the White Paper to promote and develop in pupils a knowledge and appreciation of their social and cultural heritage and environment through the study of history and geography at junior certificate level, and in particular, welcomes the Minister's commitment to maintain the status of history and geography as core curriculum subjects in the junior cycle."
I welcome this opportunity to speak about the recent debate on the place of history and geography in the junior cycle curriculum of second level education. The debate is part of a much wider discussion on what should constitute the core curriculum in all schools and began at the national education convention over three years ago.
I have listened closely, and very much welcome the interest and the depth of sentiment expressed. I now seek to clearly state my own position regarding the place of history and geography in the junior cycle curriculum. I emphasise that the status of history and geography will not change. They will remain part of the junior cycle core curriculum. We cannot abolish history.
The combined subject of history and geography is compulsory for junior certificate pupils in secondary schools. It is an optional subject for pupils in vocational, community and comprehensive schools. In fact, 740 out of a total of 772 second level schools offer history and geography, or the kindred subject of environmental and social studies, at junior certificate level. This represents a total of almost 96 per cent of second level schools and probably an even greater proportion of pupils.
At leaving certificate level neither history nor geography are core compulsory subjects. However, both subjects are among the ten most popular subjects taken by candidates in the leaving certificate examinations according to the 1994 statistics. Geography is the sixth most popular subject at 40 per cent while history is the ninth at 28 per cent. The overall order of popularity has not changed since 1991. In fact, the popularity of both history and geography has slightly increased since then.
In addressing the very important issue of the place of history in the junior cycle curriculum, I now set out clearly the White Paper's recommendations on the junior cycle. The White Paper states that all students should have attained by the end of the junior cycle: "a knowledge and appreciation of their social, cultural and physical heritage and environment".
So, we are rewriting it. It is not in the White Paper.
This constitutes a statement that students should have a basic knowledge of history and geography, as a knowledge and appreciation of the social, cultural and physical heritage and environment does, of course, mean a knowledge and understanding of history and geography.
The White Paper also states: "the programme for all students at junior cycle will include a core of Irish, English, mathematics, a science or a technological subject and at least three further subjects from a wide range of full and short courses".
Unfortunately, some believe this to mean that history and geography are excluded from the core curriculum. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both statements in the White Paper must be read together. In other words, provision must be made in the three further subjects for enabling pupils to secure a "knowledge and appreciation of their social, cultural and physical heritage and environment".
As I said, the combined subject of history and geography is compulsory in the junior certificate cycle in secondary schools but is optional in vocational, community and comprehensive schools. History and geography is an important subject whether compulsory or not. Parents, students, teachers and I, are fully aware of its importance. In practice this means that the study of history and geography is accepted to be crucial for a young educated person in Ireland today.
Last weekend, I addressed a one day conference of the Irish committee for historical sciences in St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, where I once again took the opportunity to reassure delegates that history will remain a compulsory subject in the junior cycle in those schools where it has always been compulsory in the past. I stated I believed it would be wrong to change the present situation in the face of such obvious commitment to learning history and I will not do so.
I also remarked that the debate about history has provided a focus and a direction to two vital areas of policy: the role of history, in our lives and human development, as well as in our education system; and the size and shape of the core curriculum to equip young people fully for the demands of the next century.
The argument that has been made in favour of history is a good one; that in Ireland, of all countries, we need an understanding of the forces in the past that have shaped us today. As we are all aware, those who have no understanding of history are condemened to repeat its mistakes. Looking forward, a society that appreciates and knows its past, is, I believe, in a better position to build for the future.
We need to preserve and even develop further an understanding of where we came from and what formed us. Our self-confidence as a nation, and our capacity to solve the problems we face, can only be enhanced by such an understanding. As well as national history we have the history of our families, of our community, of our heroes and heroines. In Irish we refer to this as mórtas cine, mórtas ceantair, mórtas tíre.
Local history has long been a subject of interest to children as young as primary age. I record the debt of gratitude we owe to successive generations of primary school teachers who have taken a keen interest in the areas surrounding their schools and left us with such wonderful memorials of their time. An example that springs immediately to mind is the heritage centre in Corofin, County Clare, where a major data base of emigrants to Australia was collected by the local primary teacher.
The last thing any Minister for Education would wish to do is to discriminate against history and geography. I join geography deliberately to this debate because the arguments for the presence of geography in the curriculum are equally compelling. A study of geography enriches the understanding of the environment — local, national, and global. It deepens our understanding of issues such as sustainable development and the development of the third world. It strengthens our European identity — an aspect of Irish life to which we all appreciate we have contributed so much in Europe's development. As we take on the Presidency of the European Union for the second half of this year we must remember that we are also celebrating the European Year of Lifelong Learning.
The whole concept of lifelong learning is based on the need for citizens of the future to be judged not by the particular amount of knowledge they have at any specific time but rather by their ability to search out and acquire knowledge, to weigh evidence, to store and retrieve information and to use this information in an integrated fashion to further the human ability to adapt and develop.
I can think of no other subjects which lend themselves as well as history and geography to developing the human potential to think things through, to adopt creative solutions to problems and to develop the skills of acquiring knowledge and its use. Far from wanting to reduce the emphasis on history or geography it is my desire to increase its relevance and to continually monitor progress and develop in pupils that self-knowledge and discipline which is required to develop a critical mind.
I want to turn to a linked issue which is the content of the compulsory curriculum for junior cycle. I welcome the interest expressed by teachers, students and parents on the necessary shape and size of the core curriculum for the compulsory years of education. We as a people have very strong views on what we want our students taught. We are unique among Europeans for the breadth of our curriculum, the interest we show in people of our own and other countries and in local events.
As I have already said, I do not wish in any way to diminish history and geography, but neither do I want to add a further imposition on the 39 per cent of schools which at present are not compelled to study history and geography but the majority of which do it of their own free will.
I am concerned at the overloading of the curriculum and the stresses which studying many subjects with many different teachers can cause to younger pupils. Earlier today I asked the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment to advise me as a matter of urgency on how best to meet the competing demands of a very wide variety of subjects.
It is wonderful what Private Members' time can do.
The NCCA is representative of all the education partners, school management, teachers, parents, the business world and teacher educaton institutes. It has been instrumental in bringing forward proposals for a new and exciting junior cycle curriculum which has now been in operation since 1989. This curriculum has provided opportunities for pupils of differing levels of ability to gain pleasure and satisfaction from their studies.
The NCCA deserves great credit for the foresight in producing syllabuses which lend themselves to diverse models of learning and assessment within schools. The public examinations at the end of the junior cycle succeed in reflecting, through the assessment process, many of the best features of the curriculum itself.
There is now a world of difference even between the way in which subjects like history and geography were examined when we went to school and the current approach. The problems the NCCA will address is how the many subjects on the curriculum competing for our students' time are to be met.
I am concerned that the curriculum will be broad and balanced and that it fosters an understanding among pupils of the various areas of experience which are now required for the modern world and the world of work.
All authorities are agreed that, by the end of the junior cycle, pupils must be brought to the highest level possible in oral and written language, literacy and mastery of basic mathematical ability. These may be classed as basic survival skills. In addition pupils must have an awareness and appreciation of the visual arts, music and physical education. They also need to have a knowledge of their heritage and environment. It is in this area that history and geography play a key role.
The Government has also given a commitment in the White Paper that pupils will have opportunities to study modern continental languages, science and the new technologies. There is also the requirement that the new areas of study, civic, social and political education and relationships and sexuality education, are included. How will it be possible to incorporate the range of other subjects which are optional in an already busy curriculum?
The White Paper proposes that in addition to history and geography, all students should achieve competence in literacy, numeracy and spoken language skills which will allow them to participate as young adults in society; experience in various areas of activity-artistic, intellectual, scientific, physical and practical; formative experience in moral, religious and spiritual education; knowledge and supportive guidance in matters of personal health, sexual awareness and relationships; competence and understnading in practical skills, including computer literacy and information technology and an understanding and appreciation of the central concepts of citizenship. These are all demanding objectives and Deputies will be aware as parents, as concerned citizens and as public representatives of the difficulty in translating all these objectives into reality. They are all enormously worthwhile; they are about educating the whole person. One of the problems we have is that traditionally each subject has been seen as a separate entity, competing with other subjects for more time and a stronger place in the curriculum.
The conventional manner of training second level teachers here presupposed that they are expert to a high degree in a narrow range of subjects. Naturally all teachers are anxious that their own specialist subject receives special attention. It is a constant problem for principals to reconcile the demands of the competing subjects in a timetable which is increasingly overloaded. We need to consider the possibility of integrating the acquisition of knowledge and of introducing more interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary work in our schools, even at junior cycle level.
Today I posed some questions when I addressed the NCCA: should the same set of subjects be compulsory for all students in all schools secondary, community, vocational and comprehensive? Should students of varying abilities be required to take the same set of compulsory subjects? Should compulsory subjects consist of a variety of full courses, short courses and modules?
That sounds right.
How much flexibility should be left to schools?
We need a full menu of subjects, old and new, and an interlinking of particular subjects.
And some resources.
In assisting teachers and schools in facilitating the junior cycle curriculum, I have set aside considerable resources for the provision of comprehensive in-service education for teachers.
What kind of flexibility can we leave to schools? I have asked the NCCA today to study this problem, to advise me on its considered response and to address the other key questions that have arisen during this debate.
What happened before the White Paper was published?
It is opportune to discuss and consult on the wider debate of the junior cycle curriculum which has been generated by the history debate. In making its recommendations, I have told the council that the study of history and geography is part of the core junior cycle curriculum.
I realise I am asking it to undertake a challenging assignment, and I relay on its advice to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, without any way displacing history or geography.
A new programme in civic, social and political education is being introduced in 328 schools from September 1996 for examination in 1999 and in all schools from September 1997. This replaces civics which was hitherto unexamined and was compulsory only in secondary schools. CSPE, taken alongside history and geography, will give an even greater emphasis to the acquisition of knowledge and an appreciation of our social and cultural heritage.
A further example of the importance attached to the place of history and geography in the curriculum is shown through the European studies programme. One aspect of the project involves five common units of study taken by young people aged between 12 and 15 years in Ireland, Northern Ireland and England. These units are: The Normans, Water, Plantation in the 17th century, Attitudes to Conflict (1914-21) and Migration. These units, which meet the curricular requirements in all three jurisdictions, examine issues in history and geography in a way that moves the focus from the local to the national and international.
The European studies programme, which also has two other components in a modern language programme and a more focused European awareness programme, has been widely recognised throughout the EU as a coherent, flexible and well organised initiative offering innovative approaches to many aspects of the European dimension in education. It involves communication by students through E-mail, the Internet, surface mail and student exchange in 321 schools in 17 European countries. This is likely to increase to 400 next year with 100 schools from Ireland and 85 schools from Northern Ireland.
In accordance with the White Paper it is planned to actively promote the further expansion of the European studies programme through its expansion to primary schools and encouraging and assisting the participation of more schools from disadvantaged areas. It is clear that, if our young people are to develop and value a sense of themselves as young Europeans, they will require a through understanding and appreciation of their own proud national heritage and homeland. The closer integration of Europe in the 21st century will be possible only through a rich diversity of heritage in the nations of Europe out of which has come — through long centuries — a growing sense of what is shared and common. This enrichment is to be found in history and geography and through the exciting European studies programme.
We are being guided by the White Paper commitment, which spells out curricular aims and principles. It states that the introduction of the junior certificate programme in 1989, provided, a single, unified programme for students. The programme is based on the following curricular principles: breadth and balance, quality, continuity and progression, and coherence. The junior cycle curriculum has a wider perspective than the mere choice and range of subjects. The curricular framework at junior cycle is intended to provide a wide context for the various subjects on offer.
At a recent meeting in Galway, I addressed principals and managers of secondary schools on this theme, and asked them to offer their wisdom as we in education move forward in providing all students with an opportunity to study a balanced and relevant curriculum. The passion, the concern and the intensity of the debate generated in recent weeks, demonstrate an increasing awareness and interest among the public in what we want our students to be taught. As Minister for Education, it is my responsibility to seek to meet the public's concerns, and ensure that our students receive a balanced and relevant education during compulsory years of junior cycle.
We have to seek a consensus about the role of the arts, science, technology, language and computer literacy. We have to examine the range of other areas that are critically important — some of them growing day by day in importance. We need to do this so that we can give our young people all round confidence for a changing world. We have to do that against the background of increasing stresses on young people. In other words, we cannot solve these problems by just overloading an already busy curriculum. The needs of our young people are changing and we, as a community, must develop a set of priorities that meet the education needs of a young people as they face into the next millennium just four years away.
Once the NCCA has completed its report it is my intention to make a series of recommendations to my Government colleagues on the junior cycle core curriculum, including my commitment to the retention of the study of history and geography in the junior certificate core curriculum. Whatever short-term difficulties we may encounter from time to time, the debate on education and education issues which has extended over the past three years is a healthy sign of our democracy.
During my years there has been an unprecedented process of consultation between my Department and the partners in education.
Why will the Minister not meet the History Teachers' Association?
It is not unreasonable to expect with such wide consultation that misunderstandings arise from time to time and that various interests feel threatened by change and development. I assure the House that the status of history and geography remains unchanged. They will remain as core curriculum subjects in the junior cycle. The argument in favour of history is a valid one. We in Ireland, of all countries, need an understanding of our heritage and of that past which has shaped and influenced our development through the ages.
I encourage this debate.
With respect, we have created this debate.
I will share with the House the advice of the NCCA which represents all the partners. I wait to hear the voices of the whole teaching community.
They would like to meet with the Minister but she will not meet them. She just sends out a programme manager.
What we want to retain is, in no doubt, how we go about structuring a wider and more varied curriculum to meet the needs of our young students for a changing world. That is the challenge that is presenting itself.
Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt lies an Teachta Éamon Ó Cuív.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Does the debate finish at 8.30 p.m. or does it continue for the 11 minutes which were lost earlier?
No, it will conclude at 8.30 p.m. for this evening.
Tá Sé deacair a chreidiú ing go bhfuil stádas ábhar mar stair agus tíreolaíocht in ár meánscoileanna á phlé agus go mb'fhéidir go bhfuil sé i gceist ceachtar acu nó iad araon a bhaint den churriculum don teastas sóisearach.
Ag féachaint ar an tairiscint agus ar a leasú atá os comhair na Dála cheapfá nach bhfuil difríocht ar bith eatorra. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil mórán difríochta eatorra ar pháipéar ach má éistimid leis na daoine a bhfuil iniúchadh géar déanta cue ar an bPáipéar Bán ar Chúrsaí Oideachais agus leis na daoine a d'éist go géar le ráitis an Aire le tamall anuas feicfimid go bhfuil rud éigin aisteach ar siúl. Caithfimid féachaint ar an gceist, cén fáth go mbeadh sé i gceist stair a bhaint den churriculum. An bhfuil ábhar níos tábhachtaí le cur in a h-áit? Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil. An bhfuil eachtraí i gcúrsaí staire na tíre gur mhaith linn a cheilt ar ár scoláirí? Ní ceart go mbeadh. Nach mbeadh sé i bhfad níos fearr an fhírinne a insint dóibh agus cabhrú leo ceacht a fhoghlaim don am atá romhainn ó rudaí a tharla leis na cianta. Nó an bhfuil imní ar dhaoine go bhfuil eachtraí i stair na tíre nach n-oireann dá ndearcadh féin ar Éire na nóchadaí? An gcuireann an stair isteach ar phlean mór éigin don tír san aois nua? Creideann cuid de mhúin teoirí staire na tíre a labhair liom gurb é sin atá i gceist. Tá sé in am stop a chur leis an bpleidhcíocht sin.
Pléadh rún ar na h-ábhair seo ag Comhdháil na Meánmhúinteoirí um Cháisc i mbliana. Ba léir go raibh suim ann ag múinteoirí seachas iad siúd a bhfuil na hábhair seo á múineadh acu. Mhúineas féin an dá ábhar i measc a lán ábhar eile mar mhúinteoir bunscoile ar feadh fiche bliain. Chuir an méid suime a bhí ag páistí i stair ach go háirithe ionadh an domhain orm. Theastaigh uathu a fháil amach cad a thárla in a ndúiche féin síos tríd na céadta. Bhí an t-ádh linn a bheith in ar gcómhnaí sa Bhoireann, áit a bhfuil iarsmaí na gcéadta agus na mílte bliana d'aois. Tá sé deacair do pháistí óga idirdhealú a dhéanamh idir eachtraí a tharla céad bliain ó shin agus eachtraí a tharla míle bliain ó shin agus meascann siad le chéile iad go minic.
Ní bheinn buartha faoi sin, áfach. Fuair siad amach ón stair gur mhair daoine beo ar an oileán seo ar feadh na mílte bliana, go bhfuair siad bia agus deoch ó na páirceanna céanna, gur aistrigh siad ó bheith ag fiach go dtí an fheirmeoireacht agus ar aghaidh go dtí an lá atá inniu ann.
B'fhéidir go raibh an iomarca béime ar chathanna mór agus ar chogaidh de gach sort nuair a bhíomar ar scoil — agus liostaí de dhátaí agus de dhaoine mór-le-rá i gcúrsaí polaitíochta. Bhí sé deacair, agus chun an fhírinne a rá, ní raibh sé ró-shuimiúil. Tháinig athrú ar sin nuair a leathnaíodh an t-ábhar timpeall fiche bliana ó shin.
Rinne an tAire tagairt don Ionad Staire agus Iarsmalann i mo pharóiste féin i gCorra Fine i gContae an Chláir. Bhí sé de bhuntáiste agam go raibh an fear a bhunaigh é, Iognáid Ó Cléirigh, ina mhúinteoir bunscoile agam. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam. Ba shár mhúinteoir é i ngach ábhar ach bhí sé go hiontach mar scéalaí mar ba é sin an sórt múinteoir staire a bhí ann. Chuir sé béim ar a bparóiste féin do na daltaí i bhfad roimh a chomh-mhúinteoirí agus roimh an Roinn Oideachais. Cuireadh cúrsaí cultúrtha agus ealaíona san áir eamh. Pléadh dul chun cinn i gcúrsaí feirmeoireachta agus eacnamaíochta. Thug sé eolas do na daltaí faoi an saol a bhí ann fadó ach níos tábhachtai fós cabhraíodh leo saol an lae inniu a chur i gcomhthéacs intuigthe.
Tá obair an-shuimiúil á dhéanamh ag fochoiste na staire den NCCA agus chuir na baill moltaí chun cinn tamall ó shin. Mhol siad, mar shampla, gur chóir leanúnachas a bheith ann ón gcúrsa sóisearach go dtí an cúrsa sinsearach. Tá sé deacair a thuiscint conas a fhéadfaí sin a dhéanamh muna mbíonn na hábhair á staidéar don chúrsa sóisearach féin.
Chuir mé suim sa mhéid a bhí le rá ag an Aire faoi na cúrsaí sa churriculum sna hábhair seo. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an cheist á phlé ag an NCCA agus, níos tábhachtaí, go mbeidh sí ag éisteacht leo. Tá ionadh ar mhúinteoirí agus ar Chumann na Meanmhúinteoirí nár mhol an NCCA i 1993 gur cheart stair agus tíreolas a bheith mar bhun-ábhair sa churriculum sóisearach. Tá imní ar scoláirí sna h-ollscoileanna a bhfuil na hábhair seo á staidéar acu nach mbeidh postanna le fáil acu ag múineadh na n-ábhar seo.
Bhí alt an-suimiúil san Irish Independent inniu faoi thábhacht na tíreolaíochta ó léachtóir i gColáste na hOllscoile i mBaile Átha Cliath.
Chuir sé béim ar an ngá atá ann tuiscint leathan ar chúrsaí an domhain uile a thabhairt do dhaltaí agus tá sé imníoch faoin athrú atá á phleanáil. An é polasaí an Pháipéir Bháin na hábhair seo a chur ar ceal? Má tá an polasaí sin ann is ceart deireadh a chur leis. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an athrú bunúsach atá tagtha ar dhearcadh an Aire le cúpla mí anuas. Molaim dí an leasú atá aici a bhaint den chlár agus aontú leis an Tairiscint ón Teachta Mícheál Martin.
Cuireann sé an-áthas orm go bhfuil an deis seo agam labhairt ar an díospóireacht seo. Ábhar buartha do thuismitheoirí go mór-mhór an méid atá á mholadh ag an Aire.
It is obvious from the Minister's speech that the White Paper caused total confusion. A White Paper should be intelligible to ordinary human beings. I am still not clear on the Minister's definition of a core curriculum subject. Throughout her speech she seems to contradict herself as to whether history and geography will be core curriculum subjects or subjects that will be available in all second level schools. According to the White Paper the programme for all students at junior cycle will include core subjects of Irish, English, mathematics, a science or technological subject, and at least three further subjects from a wide range of full and short courses. I cannot understand how anybody can say history and geography are specifically core subjects from that statement. We are told we are meant to read that statement in conjunction with another statement that a knowledge and appreciation of their social, cultural and physical heritage and environment is also meant to be garnered in second level schools. I fail to understand, how that specifically provides that history and geography are core subjects. If the Minister meant them to be core subjects in second level schools why did she not say so and we would all understand it and there would be no confusion.
It is extraordinary.
I find it extraordinary that the Minister talked about not further imposing on schools — that is the 39 per cent of schools that do not have to provide history and geography although she rightly pointed out that many do. It is about time the Minister realised that under Department of Education regulations there is not a choice of free education within travelling distance for some people except the local vocational school. Some of these schools, despite parent wishes, do not provide history and geography even as optional subjects. In my community more than half the parents pay for grinds in history and geography because the school refused to provide those subjects. I would have thought the Minister would have made it compulsory for all schools providing second level education to provide the subjects as a choice, even in the vocational schools, and particularly where they are the only free schools in the area. The Minister who has lectured for so long on "parents say" and "pupils desires" in education is not willing to require the schools to provide this basic service.
The Minister lectured me here one day about not understanding the educational problems of Dublin. This surprised me since I was educated in her constituency. I certainly understand the educational problems of rural Ireland and the decisions being taken and implemented to perpetuate discrimination against young people growing up in rural areas where they do not have the same choice as others in education. They are now being told the Minister is unwilling, even if there is parent demand, to provide the core subjects which most children want in a secondary school.
I will address the whole question of a basic curriculum. Those of us who value education for education sake have a deep understanding of the difference between learning and technical knowledge. When I attended university I began a computer course. At that time we were taught how to punch cards, a technical skill that is definitely irrelevant in 1996. I also did the basic subjects of mathematics, physics and chemistry. Even though I do not use in my everyday life the basic knowledge I acquired the basic skills of how to learn stand to me in good stead. When we talk about core curriculum subjects we must decide what we are trying to do in our schools and whether we are trying to turn out technological robots or provide young children with Newman-type education in its broadest sense. Our education system should focus on providing pupils with a basic knowledge of their roots, languages and mathematics. It should also focus on basic native skills in metalwork and woodwork rather than high technology skills that will change with time.
