Fiach MacConghail (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As I am not a member of the joint committee, I appreciate the courtesy shown by the Chairman in offering me an opportunity to speak on an issue on which I hold passionate views. I have not been taught, instructed or examined by any of the witnesses - maybe I was in the bold class. I will make a couple of points before asking a couple of questions.

A fascinating and positive aspect of this debate, particularly in the context of the framework for junior cycle, is that there appears to be an issue with the teaching of history, whether it is related to the framework cycle or the current position of teaching history. I ask for all sides to comment on this from a philosophical perspective. Perhaps we all agree on the issue while disagreeing on whether the framework for the junior cycle is a genuine response to the issue. As someone who is paranoid, I believe the teaching of history has an impact on political culture, political participation and ideological viewpoints. The majority of students in the leaving certificate history class of 1982 in the school I attended voted for parties on the extreme left in both elections that year because of a fantastic teacher we had, a guy called Tony Gregory, who taught us for seven years. Deputy Ó Snodaigh may agree with me on that. Mr. Gregory had a profound impact on us through his teaching. I expect Professor Ferriter and Mr. McCarthy will agree with me on the powerful impact the teaching of history can have on one's political outlook.

As we water down the teaching of history and move towards adopting extreme Orwellian language, such as the description of history as a "discrete subject", we will end up in a position where history is not taught and becomes fragmented. As Professor Ferriter stated, we will lack adequate tools to analyse the present. I am concerned about this, although I accept that a certain amount of paranoia is at work in this regard. If one considers how we celebrated, acknowledged or commemorated the Easter Rising in 1966 and 1991 and how it is proposed to commemorate the centenary in 2016, we see there has been a different emphasis in each case and that the education system backed this up, depending on what the State apparatus wanted. For example, one historical figure, Pádraig Pearse, moved from veneration to invisibility in my life cycle. Neither position is correct and I am not suggesting our esteemed guests would suggest otherwise. I am deeply concerned about the way in which history is perceived.

If one works backwards from Professor Ferriter's comment on the anxiety students may have about taking history at third level, the problem lies not at junior certificate level but at senior cycle. Neither of my daughters, both of whom attended a VEC school, was offered history for the leaving certificate despite taking the subject in the junior cycle. There is something wrong with the leaving certificate syllabus when children doing the leaving certificate next year in a progressive school with a diverse socioeconomic profile do not know the names of half the Cabinet. The reason is not a lack of interest in politics, but a failure to sufficiently enthuse or prepare them to analyse or listen to history.

Mr. McCarthy put the matter starkly when he noted the sharp decline in the number who take history for the leaving certificate when compared to those who take the subject in the junior certificate. Surely there is a much more sophisticated or nuanced analysis than ascribing this fall to a decline in interest. While it may be that history examinations are essentially a writing race, we must have a much more sophisticated analysis of the issue. This debate on the junior certificate framework is an important aspect of such an analysis. I ask the witnesses to comment. I am concerned that this should not undermine potential citizenship or the legacy of the decade of centenaries that is taking place.

I understood from the comments of Ms Naughton and Ms Crowley that the same number of teaching hours is available in the proposed new syllabus for the junior certificate as in the current syllabus. I may have misheard the details of the proposals in the current framework. I ask them to clarify if that is the case.