Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

My thanks to the History Teachers Association of Ireland. I would know little about theatre, nothing about literature and I would know less about the poetry and drama of this country had it not been for history. I see it as a remarkable part of our lives. It should nearly be a compulsory subject, but I cannot really go that far. It should be available as a core subject to every child in the country. If I was to define it with my small sense of definition I would say it is the only way left to explain ourselves. Many other ways do not have its truth. It is literally the only way back and the only way to explain ourselves, who we are, what we are and how we are. To take it out of the curriculum or confine it to discrete or short courses is not enough. I have worked in university all my life and I know that even at a mature level short courses are not always the way to go, even with mature minds. I do not believe they are the way to go with young minds.

Let us consider this document, A Framework for Junior Cycle. Numeracy and literacy are at the core of it but the Department has left out the third part of the trinity, that is, oralcy, which is not even mentioned in this document, nor are the arts or any of the defined arts. It seems to have become learning in the same manner as taking television meals. I fully agree with Senator Fidelma Healy Eames, who I rarely agree with in the Seanad. Let us consider terms such as "appreciate", "respect", "value", "create", "critically interpret", "understand", "describe", "illustrate", "observe" and "evaluate". I wonder whether we are talking about the Seanad when I think of these words. Anyway, the Department of Education and Skills has made these terms into a convenient veil to lay over everything. Subjects such as history and English have a right to have a reason for their existence under that veil and independent of that veil. That is the major problem. They are remarkably important subjects and great subjects with explanations of who, what and how we are. To put them in any other category is to take them out of the definition of education and I am totally against that. I believe the Department should reassess this document because in many respects it smacks of what may be termed "television meals education".