Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next item for discussion is the framework for the junior cycle curriculum. In October 2013 the Minister for Education and Skills published a framework for the junior cycle which set out the planned reform of the junior cycle in post-primary schools. It builds on proposals developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment that were published in November 2011. The framework has been the subject of much comments since its publication. Earlier in the year we had a meeting with the History Teachers' Association of Ireland and examined the history aspect of the reforms.

Three delegations are present to discuss the framework. I welcome Ms Sally Maguire, president, and Ms Moira Leydon, assistant general secretary, ASTI; Mr. Des Hogan, acting chief executive, and Ms Fidelma Joyce, senior human rights awareness officer, Irish Human Rights Commission; and Mr. Chris Macey, head of advocacy, and Ms Maureen Mulvihill of the Irish Heart Foundation. We will start the ASTI presentation and I invite Ms Maguire to make her opening remarks.

Ms Sally Maguire:

I thank the members and the Chairman, Deputy Tuffy, for the opportunity to address the committee. This is not ASTI's first time to address the committee on the subject of the junior cycle framework, but this is a critical time for its implementation.

ASTI has been engaged in a continual process of consultation with teachers on the issues arising from the framework for the past year. As a result of recent talks on the Haddington Road agreement, we have secured the formation of an implementation group. Last Monday, we held a bilateral meeting with officials from the Department of Education and Skills to outline ASTI's concerns about the framework.

The core messages that came back from our consultation was that aspects of the framework are very good for teaching and learning. Teachers are excited about much of what is in the framework. They are excited about the nuts and bolts of the framework but when we dug down beyond that, we realised that 50% of ASTI principals said that our schools do not have the capacity to bring in the changes.

Teachers are also greatly concerned about the framework's assessment and certification model. The fact that it is exclusively school based does not give confidence to teachers and we need some external benchmark to keep standards up. The two big issues that concern teachers about the assessment are, first, that Ireland is lucky to have a special teacher-student relationship. Teachers are very precious about it because they view themselves as advocates for their students. Teachers do not want that relationship changed into one of judging students.

The second important issue is that teachers feel that standards may drop or at least will not be consistent because what works in one school may not work in another. The OECD has always said that all of its evidence showed that Ireland is unique because no matter what school one goes to, a consistent standard of education is delivered across the board.

If we lose that, we lose so much. It is a big worry for parents. We feel there is a widening gap between policy aspirations and the implementation strategy involved in the framework. That has now become a concern for all of the education partners, including management bodies, staff and unions. All of the education partners are now saying the same thing, namely, that we are not ready for the implementation of this framework. This is a huge culture change for teachers and to suggest that it can be done in one day, which is what the Department is proposing, and in advance of the English subject specifications coming in, is absolutely ludicrous.

We feel that what is needed is whole-staff training, in order to get across this cultural change to teachers within their own schools. It is really unfair to expect English teachers to attend in-service training and to be the carriers of that training to the rest of the staff. They should not be expected to have to explain a whole new way of teaching and learning to their colleagues.

We would like to see the deferral of at least some aspects of the framework until such time as teachers have confidence in it, believe in it and believe they can do it. They want to do it but they want to do it right, and right may not mean right now. On the issue of assessment, we feel that assessment is central to education but it is not the only or even the major tool for improving the quality of learning. OECD evidence indicates that teachers have the biggest impact on student learning and outcomes. There is a mixture of fear and excitement among teachers but until their fears are overcome, it will not be possible to implement this framework in schools. We must get the resources, the training and all that is needed in terms of technology, continuous professional development and so forth right. This will not happen overnight, in one day or one week - training and professional development must be continuous until the framework is bedded down.

On the question of technology, we appreciate the fact that there are great moves afoot in the context of broadband availability in schools and understand that new initiatives will be announced next week. We welcome technological developments and investment. The new framework has the potential for the greater involvement of technology in learning. In that context, ICT equipment must be maintained and a ring-fenced budget must be put in place for schools to allow them to keep their ICT equipment up to date and to pay experts to look after it. Teachers are not techies, in the main. ICT systems break down and if we are moving in the direction of using ICT systems more, we need to have the backup in place. Even with enhanced broadband availability, some schools do not have the capacity to utilise it because their ICT systems are so old. That issue must be dealt with.

The most important point is that this framework will not work without teachers on board. We need to move forward, bring teachers along and enable them to believe in the framework. We must give them the facilities and supports they need so that they will believe in it. Then it could be something really new and exciting in education.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now invite Mr. Des Hogan to make a presentation on behalf of the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC.

Mr. Des Hogan:

The Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, is delighted to have been invited here today to speak about the new junior cycle programme and, in particular, civic, social and political education, CSPE. The IHRC was established under statute in 2000 to promote and protect the human rights of everyone in the State and as a direct product of the Good Friday Agreement. The commission is recognised as Ireland’s National Human Rights Institution, NHRI, under the United Nations Paris Principles. Committee members may be aware that the commission will shortly merge with the Equality Authority to form the new enhanced Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.

One of the commission’s functions is to monitor and review the State’s compliance with its human rights obligations including education that strengthens human rights. The scope of human rights education in post-primary settings was examined by the IHRC in "Human Rights Education in Ireland – An Overview", a report published in 2011 and launched by the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn. One of its main findings was that CSPE is by far the most explicit form of human rights education in the curriculum.

First, the commission would like to welcome certain aspects of the new junior cycle programme, including the introduction of portfolio-based assessment, greater choice with short courses, the human rights-oriented statements of learning and the focus on literacy. However, for such measures to work there must be a clear implementation strategy, meaningful revision of subject syllabi, sufficient initial and in-service teacher training and subjects such as CSPE must remain State examinable.

The thrust of our presentation today concentrates on the proposed removal of CSPE as a compulsory State-examinable subject to be replaced by a short course within the new junior cycle programme. Currently, CSPE is the only explicit opportunity available to all students in Ireland to experience learning that equips them for what the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child describes as “a responsible life in a free society” as active, participatory citizens. Consequently, the IHRC is of the view that CSPE should remain a compulsory State-examinable subject, as it clearly demonstrates Ireland’s compliance with its international obligations in this field. Efforts to mainstream human rights values in other subjects should be complementary to and build on CSPE.

The rationale for retaining CSPE as a mandatory State-examinable subject can be set out under a number of principles. First, its retention as a mandatory subject would assist the State to demonstrate how it is meeting its obligations to provide education that strengthens human rights. It could form the cornerstone on which to integrate human rights into other subjects.

Second, CSPE promotes active citizenship based on human rights. A subject on citizenship has been a compulsory part of the post-primary curriculum since the then Minister for Education, Donogh O’Malley, introduced civics in 1966. The subject has evolved since then to meet changes in society and how we view ourselves in the world. CSPE has its origins in the UN Decade for Human Rights Education from 1995 to 2004, as is evident in its stated aim, which is to provide students with the knowledge and skills for active participatory citizenship based on human rights, enabling them to critically question, have empathy and engage with the world around them. Research demonstrates that because of the action project component of CSPE, young people are engaging more with the world around them and human rights themes are some of the most popular topics addressed.

The 2007 task force on active citizenship recommended the expansion of education for citizenship in the school system and specifically recommended the strengthening of the role of CSPE in that regard. The re-designation of CSPE as non-compulsory would mean that citizenship education would not be available to all students for the first time since 1966. The positive impact of CSPE is revealed in international research. In an international civic and citizenship study of 14 year olds across 38 countries, Ireland ranked seventh out of the countries studied, with its final score substantially ahead of the international average, due in no small part to the fact that CSPE is mandatory and State examinable. This research is backed up with evidence from the United Kingdom that suggests that a strong citizenship education subject in the curriculum is the most effective way of promoting equality, human rights, democracy and social justice within the curriculum.

Third, CSPE supports responses to diversity in schools. Ireland is an increasingly diverse society, which brings many challenges. There has been an active response by successive Ministers of Education to promote diversity in education through the development of Traveller culture, inter-cultural and homophobic bullying guidelines. The CSPE curriculum provides the space for schools wishing to respond positively and effectively to cultural and other forms of diversity, and to move this State towards becoming a truly inter-cultural society.

Fourth, CSPE provides a space to address sensitive issues. The active methodologies of CSPE, supplemented by continuous professional development, support teachers and students to address issues and confront attitudes and behaviours that conflict with human rights and equality principles. Often it is in school that we first learn about and are able to confront such attitudes and behaviours.

Fifth, CSPE increases political and social literacy. The emphasis on improving literacy in the new junior cycle is very welcome. We concur with the view that an important aspect of CSPE is its ability to students to acquire a level of political literacy necessary for accessing democratic society and to demystify political systems, to provide both the language and the skills needed for democratic participation. The removal of CSPE as a compulsory subject could deprive students of the opportunity to develop strong political and social literacy. CSPE is also a foundation for the new subject, politics and society. The gap in the senior cycle for a subject that addresses philosophy, politics, democracy and human rights, equality, and global interdependence was finally addressed after more than eight years of good consultation and deliberation, with the development of the very exciting and much anticipated politics and society subject. While science is the foundational subject for students in the junior cycle who wish to branch out in to biology, physics or chemistry in the senior cycle, from a humanities perspective, the curriculum of CSPE is an important foundation for politics and society.

Sixth, CSPE makes a vital contribution to the development of a whole-school approach. The IHRC considers that realisation of the full potential of the CSPE curriculum is supported by a whole-school approach. School councils and other such representative spaces give young people the opportunity to participate in decision-making and enables them to put into practice the principles of human rights and democracy fostered in the CSPE curriculum.

Finally, CSPE allows for the views of young people to be expressed, heard and taken into account, which is a key requirement of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. When young people were consulted on the junior cycle reform, they said they wanted CSPE to be restructured, taught differently and given more time. It is worth noting that CSPE and SPHE were two of the subjects that young people considered should be compulsory at junior cycle.

The Irish Human Rights Commission recommends that CSPE should remain as a compulsory State-examinable subject in the new junior cycle programme. Ireland has an obligation under international human rights law to provide education on human rights to children here. CSPE is currently the only component of the post-primary curriculum that explicitly meets Ireland’s commitments in this regard. CSPE lessons provide the only opportunity available to every student in Ireland to experience learning that equips them as active participatory citizens that will forge the more caring, rights-respecting, equal and democratic society to which we all aspire. If the State proceeds to render the subject non-compulsory, it must be in a position to demonstrate how it proposes to adequately meet its international obligations under these conventions. In the absence of clear defensible evidence to this end, the State will be seen to be retreating from its human rights commitments in this area.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Mr. Chris Macey to make a presentation on behalf of the Irish Heart Foundation.

Mr. Chris Macey:

I thank the committee for this opportunity to discuss our concerns about the proposed changes to the junior cycle framework as they relate to the physical education, PE, curriculum. The Department currently recommends that students receive two hours of PE each week over the three-year junior cycle. Under the new proposals, PE will become an optional short course and-or part of the "other learning experiences" section of the curriculum. This means PE might not be offered at all by some schools. In schools that continue PE classes, the amount of time spent on them over the three-year cycle will be cut from the current 198 hours to just 100 hours. That means the Department is planning to cut the amount of time spent on PE by half at a time when the childhood obesity crisis is spiralling out of control, which has obviously been the subject of a great deal of discussion at this forum.

A recent study showed that at present, before any change has been made, just 10% of secondary school pupils receive the minimum recommended PE time. A quarter of the 5,000 children surveyed as part of this study are unfit, overweight, obese or have elevated blood pressure. In that context, we have to ask how on earth it will benefit these young people to cut the amount of time designated for PE almost in half. EU comparisons also paint a bleak picture of our performance in this regard. Ireland is the only EU member state in which PE is not compulsory. With an average of just 77 minutes a week being spent on PE at secondary level, our secondary provision record places us near the bottom of the EU league table. As I have said, a fraction of pupils receive the minimum recommended time. The average amount of time spent on PE in our primary schools - just 46 minutes a week - is the third lowest in the EU. The only conclusion we can draw from those statistics is that we are already abjectly failing our young people when it comes to PE. In all probability, things are about to get a lot worse.

It is clear that the proposals with regard to PE time breach various Government policies, particularly the cross-Government framework for health and well-being, known as Healthy Ireland. This policy, which was launched by the Taoiseach in April, includes a commitment to fully implement the PE programme in primary and secondary schools. That means that pupils in secondary schools should get at least two hours a week of PE classes. The most innovative and possibly the most important element of Healthy Ireland is the commitment to deliver, for the first time, a whole-of-Government approach to health in this country. This should involve health imperatives being factored into every policy of every Government Department. Any downgrading of PE would represent a failure on the part of the Department of Education and Skills to live up to this crucial goal. Apart from our specific concerns with regard to PE, it would have wide implications for a flagship Government health policy. I ask my colleague, Ms Mulvihill, to complete our presentation.

Ms Maureen Mulvihill:

The committee is well aware of the facts surrounding Ireland's obesity crisis. Ireland has one of the highest proportions of overweight children in the EU. The figures are alarming. One in four three year olds, one in four primary school children and one in five teenagers is overweight or obese. These figures mean that the problem of obesity is likely to continue to be a challenge at post-primary level well into the future. Physical activity plays a vital role in combating obesity and cardiovascular disease, which is still the leading cause of death in this country. That is why we have a huge interest in this topic.

PE is a key component of physical activity for young people. It allows children to develop the necessary physical literacy skills and knowledge to lead healthy and active lifestyles for life. The Growing Up in Ireland study shows that there is a link between being physically active and maintaining a healthy weight. Thirteen year olds who took more exercise were less likely to be overweight or obese. Some 36% of post-primary pupils do not take part in extra-curricular school sport, which is another component of physical activity and is central to the school curriculum in so far as it relates to PE. Those who do not take part tend to be pupils from lower social classes and older pupils.

As members will be aware, the national guidelines on physical activity for young people recommend that they should have 60 minutes of such activity each day. Just 12% of post-primary pupils achieve this. Ironically, a similar percentage of students - 10%, in this case - are in classes that meet the current PE guidelines in schools. It is important to stress that physical activity benefits young people socially and emotionally, as well as physically. The links to mental health, development of self-esteem and social skills cannot be over-estimated in the current climate, where concerns about the mental health of our young people are high.

Evidence is increasingly emerging that being sedentary, for example, due to sitting in a school classroom for over six hours, is an independent risk factor for health. The important thing is to break the sedentary time with activity, ideally as frequently as possible. Unfortunately, the opportunity to be active inside and outside school is diminishing due to environmental influences, such as increased motorised transport to and from school, due to issues of safety and due to a lack of facilities inside and outside school that can be used for activity. Young people's learning and leisure opportunities are now more sedentary by virtue of the influences of television, the Internet and social media.

All of this makes PE more important than ever. That is recognised by the obesity task force. As Mr. Macey has mentioned, that was also recognised in the Healthy Ireland framework. It is ironic, therefore, that the proposed new junior cycle framework is recommending that PE should have shorter hours. How will the new PE framework meet the greater needs of disadvantaged pupils and older girls, who are less likely to take part in sport? In the specific case of girls, we know that minutes of PE influence levels of physical activity. We have excellent data on the need for young people to engage in physical activity and PE. We should be using that data to guide us.

For 20 years, the Irish Heart Foundation has worked with schools to support the teaching of PE at primary and secondary levels. We have done this because physical inactivity is a major risk for heart disease and stroke. It is in the same category as smoking, high blood pressure and cholesterol. I have outlined the relationship between physical inactivity and obesity. The foundation has a track record in this area. Our only interest is the health of our young people. In our view, the new junior cycle framework does not recognise the importance of PE not just for health, but also for learning and cognitive function. There is increasing evidence of the importance of PE in this respect.

We contend that the reduced status given to PE in the new framework, as an optional short course and-or one of the "other learning experiences", means it is likely that fewer students will take PE. We urge the Department of Education and Skills and indeed this committee to reconsider this decision. We would like to see schools provide core PE following the junior cycle PE curriculum. Perhaps this could be positioned under the "other learning experiences" section of the new framework. We suggest that this would not be assessed, but that an additional short course on PE which would be assessed could also be offered.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Ms Mulvihill to wrap up.

Ms Maureen Mulvihill:

Our position here today is supported by the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland. I sit on the college's policy group on obesity, which is co-chaired by Professor Donal O'Shea, who is a consultant endocrinologist and is well known to many people as a leading adviser on the issue of obesity, and Professor Catherine Hayes of Trinity College.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. The members of the committee will now ask some questions.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests from the ASTI, the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Irish Heart Foundation on the very important topic of the junior certificate which will have key ramifications for the curriculum and the type of course and direction that secondary school education takes in the coming years.

I apologise for missing the first part of the ASTI presentation. There are a few points I would like developed. How has the ongoing industrial situation between teachers and the Department affected preparations for the start of the junior certificate reform for English? What is the position with regard to courses, engagement and so on? What level of engagement has taken place so far between teachers and the Department in the area of professional training and preparation for the introduction of the English course? Are we still on course to ensure that is achieved on time for the new junior certificate reformed English curriculum beginning next year?

Do the witnesses believe that the amount of in-service training that is being discussed and offered by the Department is where it needs to be and is sufficient to ensure teachers are prepared for the new course and are fully engaged with it in order that it starts in the way we need it to? It is important that the whole reform process starts on a good footing. The way in which reform of the English curriculum starts and how English teachers react will have a bearing on how teachers down the road will react and on the feedback to other teachers. If not done properly it could lead to difficulties, and that is not the way to start off.

I would appreciate a further comment on the issue of independent assessment and the Minister's proposal to move from a State certificate to a school certificate. I note that for the first couple of years the Minister has indicated that the examination will continue to be set and marked by the State Examination Commission but the overall proposal is that it will move away from the commission. That is an issue about which I would have serious concerns, having discussed the issue with parents and teachers. There are genuine concerns in this area. In asking teachers to mark their students, as such, they are also marking themselves, because it is the result of two or three years work with the students and how one class performs against another. We must ensure consistency and credibility, within a school to begin with in order that two teachers are not marking separately. For example, no teacher will want to mark themselves a bit lower. Everybody will hedge at the higher end in order that their students come out better. Likewise, schools will want to give themselves the benefit of the doubt in terms of the marking scheme because they will not want a lower marking than other schools. If we do down that road, it could lead to a situation where the credibility of the junior certificate as a benchmark of standards in the education system is diminished and lost and possibly also the credibility in respect of a student in one school being able to assess his or her marks against another student in another school who sat the same examination. In relation to-----

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We agreed that each speaker would have three minutes. The Deputy is heading into four minutes.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be very brief. I have a question for the Irish Human Rights Commission. In regard to civic, social and political education, CSPE, and PE, schools are critical in terms of how people are set up for life. Those are two very important skills. We do a lot on the academic side but the other skills people need are in those two particular subjects. The History Teachers' Association appeared before the committee in recent months. It advocated that history should be a compulsory subject. There are many people who advocate that religion should be a compulsory subject. If one were to take on board all those one would have, including English, Irish, maths, religion, PE, history and so on, eight subjects out of nine would be compulsory without having a science or language subject. I would appreciate the comments of the witnesses on how that would fit into the programme. Perhaps the ASTI would comment on CSPE and PE and the teachers' view.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh followed by Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am deputising for Deputy Jonathan O'Brien who is our spokesperson on education. He apologises for not being able to be present. I thank the three organisations for their presentations, all of which I found fascinating. This is a question for all three delegations. Do they feel that the new proposed cycle will provide a better holistic education while addressing the issue of providing people for the workforce? We are making wholesale changes to the cycle but does it mean we will educate our children better? Is it a step forward or a step backward? On the question of providing people for the workforce, Mr. Des Hogan mentioned the science phenomenon that if we want people in the IT sector, they must have a basis in science. If we need people who are good citizens, we need to have civil rights issues addressed.

I ask all three organisations what level of engagement, if any, they are having with the Department on these issues and whether this is the first engagement with the sector. I am sure it will different for the ASTI because of its outlook. Are the two other organisations being listened to by the Department?

On the independent assessment issue, obviously we have to look at this in the context of the leaving certificate, but will it be taken less seriously because it is done in school. Will there be a knock-on effect, therefore, in how children will be prepared when it comes to the leaving certificate given that they have not had the State examination scenario at junior certificate level?

In regard to the implementation group that has been set up, are the witnesses happy that its terms of reference are sufficient to address their concerns? Does it have enough scope to bring the issues to the table? Do the witnesses consider that the issues they raise can be addressed through the implementation group or are its terms of reference too narrow to focus on some of the issues?

Deputy McConalogue asked if the ASTI is sidelined because of the stance it has taken on the Haddington Road agreement vis-à-vis implementation of the new junior certificate cycle and the recommendations it has put forward. Is it getting a deaf ear from the Department or is the Department engaging with the ASTI wholesomely? Notwithstanding any labour issues there might be, the educational issues have to move forward. We cannot have a stalled process.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is great that Ms Sally Maguire is present as I agree with everything she has said. I think this document is like a magic show. It has 24 statements of learning. That seems to be where it finds its raison d'être. We have lunatic statements from the OECD that underline that teachers have the biggest impact on classroom learning as if that was some kind of new knowledge when it is fundamental. That is where the Department should have begun. Had it begun with that statement, many of the 24 statements of learning would have been contextualised and natural. Many of my colleagues present would agree with that. There is an enormous problem with this because when one digs down, one is at Mr. Magic, so to speak. Ms Maguire is right about the school capacities and capabilities, depending on where they are, the assessment and certification being school-based, the lack of external benchmarks and the lack of consistency. I would ask the same question as my colleague, namely, how far the witnesses have got with those arguments with the Department.

There is a massive problem with this plan, and we are hearing it from all the witnesses today and from the CSPE, PE and the History Teachers' Association - I tabled a Private Members' motion about history in the Seanad - and that is the short course element. Everything is going to be stuffed into a short course.

We will have the core primary subjects, English, mathematics and Irish, and everything else will be a case of us all being at the market together where we must put out our stall. I do not believe middle school pupils, 12 to 15 year olds, are able for short courses. That is a module system that works within universities and with a more mature mind. It does not work for the young mind. Already, short courses within the learning programme are brought into schools by staff.

I agree on the importance of CSPE. More than ever, with the collapse of human rights, we need this subject. I also completely agree we need PE, as we are part of a couch potato society. We produced a committee report on this issue and we could fill Croke Park with children under 14 who are overweight. I cannot express how much I would like to help promote what the witnesses have been saying here today, starting with what has been said by those from the ASTI. There is a fundamental problem with regard to how this curriculum has been magicked into being and with the 24 reasons for living.

The first paragraph should have been about the power and greatness of teaching. The reason we have 1 million young people in further education is because of great teaching, from preschool to university. Subjects must be brought alive by great teaching. I am a product of that system, good or bad as I am. That is the argument we should make first. Then we should move on to the validation and brilliance of the disciplines of knowledge the witnesses are batting for.

Mr. Chris Macey:

I will respond to Deputy McConalogue's excellent question regarding how everyone thinks the subject in which they are interested is the most important. I will not say anything bad about history. It is an important subject, as is geography and as are all the others mentioned. In regard to PE, class time will remain the same, but what we are talking about is non-sedentary study time. Besides physical reasons, there are strong emotional and social reasons for a strong PE curriculum in our schools. Physical exercise also plays an important mental health role. This is an issue at the top of the policy agenda currently, for obvious reasons. One of the most important ways to assist children's mental health and its development is through physical activity.

We have an obesity crisis in this country. I am aware from attending various committees and from watching what goes on in the Dáil that this is an issue that is discussed quite often. The Dáil has been debating for several years what to do about obesity but has not managed to do anything positive to tackle the problem because of the complexity of the issue. The issue of fat taxes is complex, as is the issue of the marketing of food for children, because of the power of the vested interests in various parts of the food industry. It would be easy to implement what we seek. We are talking about time for PE in schools. If we cannot do this, we cannot do anything. We know from research that the time allocated to PE is more important than the facilities in terms of having an effective course and curriculum. We are not giving the time required to PE. If we cannot resolve this issue of time for PE, we will not be able to resolve any of the more complex issues.

A question was asked regarding how far we have got. We have not got anywhere. We have written to the Minister and the Department and have asked for meetings, but we have not got any satisfaction. I do not believe our opinion is valued and, in desperation, we have talked to the Department of Health. Obviously, that Department will speak for itself, but it is concerned.

Ms Maureen Mulvihill:

I would like to make a quick comment on why PE should be on the curriculum ahead of many of the other subjects. The hours allocated for PE would not be the same as those required for other subjects. We are talking about 250 hours over three years for those subjects, but we are only seeking 198 hours for PE over three years. We contend that the Government and the Department cannot afford not to have PE available for every student in our schools.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Hogan wish to contribute on this?

Mr. Des Hogan:

I will call on my colleague, Ms Joyce, to respond to some of the questions shortly. Deputy McConalogue asked about engagement with the Minister. We wrote to the Minister twice and to the NCCA. We would like to have had more engagement with the Minister. As a statutory body, we are there to provide advice to the Government on best practice and how to meet its international and constitutional obligations. We are also called upon internationally, before UN committees, to give our independent assessment as to how the State is doing. We have a kind of bridging role and see ourselves as providing advice, to Government primarily, to ensure we are not criticised internationally.

As we heard in regard to PE, we need to think about what sort of society we are trying to develop. CSPE introduces students to a variety of areas - equality, human rights, democracy, inclusiveness, diversity, tolerance, and so forth - areas they would not ordinarily cover. We had a very successful action project last year. We also had a folder exhibition, which was launched by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. Quite a number of the contributions from students talked about how the issue of human rights affects them in their local area, issues such as the right to be safe, the right to own property and issues we do not normally associate with this area. CSPE opens up these issues and, with increasing diversity in schools, it allows for discussion of the sort of person we want children to become. Do we want them to understand about homophobic bullying, Traveller inclusiveness or same-sex inclusiveness? Do we want them to develop a tolerance and understanding and embracing of diversity or do we want to have students who do not understand or who have never come across these concepts? This is the core question for us. If we do not make CSPE compulsory, these issues will not be a compulsory part of the curriculum. If I was a member of a UN committee and asking questions of Ireland, I would be asking it to show me what it had done and how it had replaced one thing with another and made the system better.

Ms Fidelma Joyce:

There are a few points to make regarding the compulsory aspect of CSPE. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child speak of a state's need to provide education that strengthens human rights. The committee on the convention on the rights of the child went even further and looked at what this involves. It said it is about more than knowing the facts about human rights and is about living and experiencing human rights in one's daily life. A big part of a child's daily life is the child's school life. CSPE is a very innovative programme, although it has limitations. We have always been concerned that it is not allocated sufficient hours, that there are timetabling issues, and we have always been concerned by the lack of teacher support.

That said, CSPE is an explicit example in the curriculum where every student has the opportunity not only to learn about human rights and equality, but to experience them through a creative process - the action project. This project is unique to CSPE among junior cycle subjects. CSPE is an excellent opportunity for young people to engage and develop skills and to apply these skills in their daily lives.

We have introduced a number of different guidelines, such as Traveller culture guidelines, intercultural guidelines and the homophobic bullying guidelines. All of these guidelines are wonderful, but they need a pitch or a place where they can be teased out and explored. CSPE provides an excellent opportunity for young people to deal with these issues in a human rights framework, and develop the skills to confront racism and prejudice. We have seen through our Express Yourself initiative how students are able to deal with these topics and relate a human rights standard to an issue that affects not only themselves but others in the community, such as their parents or grandparents. It is very important that this is a core subject in order that every student can benefit from a human rights framework.

In respect of the provision of holistic education, we support the fact that the framework is offering a more creative approach. There is potential with short courses, but we do not see CSPE as a short course. We see it as a compulsory part of the curriculum where we could have electives that would allow a student to go deeper on a human rights issue, development issue or a sustainable environmental issue. There are options where the short courses can be supportive to a core course, which is what CSPE is.

We see CSPE, social, personal and health education, SPHE, and PE as intrinsic to a person's mental and physical well-being, and to the development of his or her personality as an active citizen in our society. We believe CSPE should be a core subject as a result.

Ms Moira Leydon:

There have been some very interesting questions. Seanadóir Ó Clochartaigh asked if it would provide a better education. One would have to have an open mind, quite frankly. The outcomes of education are always long-term. They are not measurable within five or ten years. They are life-long and that is why education has to be right. We cannot bring in changes which we are not quite sure will have the desired outcomes. That is why the ASTI has become so agitated over the framework.

There are many positive aspects in the framework and it would be foolish to deny that. It is premised upon developing a junior cycle education which reflects the extraordinary changes in the world, in our societies and in the way we live as individuals in social communities. We are asking that we be listened to. We have 20, 30 or 35 years of daily pedagogic experience with young people and we are very concerned about certain matters. There is unanimity within the second level education partners - the management bodies, the principals and the teachers - that our system is not ready for this exponential change just right now. The ASTI is requesting a deferral of certain aspects of the framework, specifically the introduction of English as a completely new subject in September 2014.

We also have deep reservations about the assessment and certification model. I think they have been clearly explained. Assessment must support learning and not just test learning. The current proposals in the framework, which include no provision for an external benchmark or quality assurance process, are deeply flawed. This does not engender confidence among teachers. It certainly will not engender confidence among parents, who are thinking of the progression of their children to senior cycle and the high stakes leaving certificate and so on. We must have an open mind, but we would like committee members to listen to the practitioners. We know the outcomes will not occur tomorrow, but in ten or 15 years time when we reflect on our experience.

To answer Senator O'Donnell's question, it is a very complex package. The framework is probably the most complex educational package to be put before the education community and policymakers in decades. For that reason, we ask that this be taken slowly. It is very complex. It is not just about assessment and short courses. It is about bridging the transition from primary to secondary level. It is about key skills and about developing competencies beyond the cognitive to enable young people to be the resilient, open to learning young people we want and need them to be. By virtue of that very complexity, it is very difficult for teachers to get to grips with it. The difficulties that have been highlighted by committee members are exactly like what is experienced in the staffrooms. The teachers are asking the Minister to hold on for a moment, to listen to them and to engage with them. Much of the rationale for the negative reaction of the ASTI members to the Haddington Road agreement proposals was driven largely by the sense of having policy after policy pushed on us without taking our legitimate concerns into account.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I make some quick comments, I must apologise. With the way this place works on a Wednesday, we have to be in 14 different places at the one time, and as soon as we get into an interesting discussion, we are told we have to leave. I will make some comments and I hope the witnesses can excuse me at that point.

This has been an interesting discussion. I welcome much of what has been said. The witnesses have been open minded and have spoken about teachers being excited about elements of what has been proposed. We must acknowledge that change is needed. The junior certificate, as it stands, is not relevant to the modern era as we cannot ask 15 year olds to get a certificate in order that they might go out to the workforce with it. That is an old-fashioned idea. Some people are failing in the education system, particularly young men. Many of them fall out in second year of secondary school. They might not fall out in body and they might still be enrolled, but they certainly are not fulfilling their potential. Something has to change, not just in the teaching but also in the learning. That is where we are coming from with these changes. I take on board what has been said today. Nothing can happen in education without empowering teachers. Nothing can happen in education without bringing everybody with us. I know that from my experience.

We had the History Teachers' Association of Ireland before the committee, and one would swear from media commentary that we were banning history in every school in the country. When we dig deeper into the statistics, we find that only 50% of schools in the State have compulsory history at the moment, but 90% of them study history at junior certificate level. We find that 54,000 students are doing junior certificate history and geography, but twice as many are doing leaving certificate geography than doing leaving certificate history. Sometimes something is presented and a narrative begins, but when we examine it a little bit more, it does not seem as simple as initially presented. In respect of the Irish Heart Foundation, what is being suggested will happen would be a negative. What is the current situation in physical education? Is it adequate? Are schools doing it? I know of second level schools, especially girls' schools, where it seems to be more of an option to opt out of physical education.

We need to broaden the argument about obesity. We need to start talking about hunger. One fifth of children in this State are going to school or to bed hungry. It is not necessarily a resources issue. It is a chaos, dysfunctionality and lifestyle issue. That is part of the overall discussion about food, helping our children learn and the lifestyle choices parents and individual families make. When the witnesses talk about a lack of reaction on the part of the political system to that, I point out that we spend more on breakfast and school meals than we ever have before, at €37 million, but part of that is a wider discussion about children coming to school hungry at primary and second level.

I want to say one thing about the Irish Human Rights Commission.

Approximately two years ago, I went to many second level schools and talked to junior certificate students who had just done the examination. They told me that the one subject they had question marks over was civic, social and political education, CSPE. They enjoyed it but they took the view that not enough time was given to it, that it was not structured enough and that it was not going anywhere. This was their view, not mine; the subject was not in the system when I was in school. Anyway, there is great potential for the subject in respect of turning children into citizens and not simply economic units. I fully agree with the deputation in that regard. One frustrating aspect of this building is that we discuss the economy and money so much and human beings as economic units. Really, we should be discussing turning people into citizens. I accept what the deputation has said about a vehicle or subject like this. However, as Deputy McConalogue asked, rightly, how does one balance so many different subjects and values within the education system to try to achieve what we want to achieve?

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the panel. I am sorry I missed the contributions but I was listening to most of what people said on the monitor upstairs. I compliment the Chair on having this session. It could not be more timely and it is very much needed.

I come from this sector. I like some things about the junior certificate reform proposals. I like the learning outcome statements relating to developing critical and creative thinkers. We all agree on that. I like some of the proposals on continuous assessment. I have great difficulty, however, with dumbing down a State certificate examination to a school certificate. The greatest losers will be early school leavers, those who drop out before the leaving certificate.

Even with the recession, which is keeping more students in school, between one in eight and one in ten students are still dropping out. We put these young people on the boat to wherever they are going to emigrate. Their future employers will ask for transcripts from their home school. This happened to me when I went abroad for college. All they will get is a school-based report. This is rubbish. I started tweeting yesterday about scrapping the school certificate. What is the view of the panel? In my view, it is simply reinforcing inequality. Recently, a teacher put a question to me about the weight of a school certificate from Walkinstown or Ballyfermot versus one from Blackrock or Gonaza College, whether nationally or even internationally. We know that education is the great equaliser and the route out of poverty. Why turn all of that back to make it an "unequaliser"? I am keen to hear the views of the panel on that point.

I have great difficulty with turning early school leavers into children without any State examination. I know the ASTI has articulated the point on the bias entering into an examination when we are relying totally on inside markers, that is, the teachers themselves. I propose a mix of keeping the State examination plus local continuous assessment.

I recognise where the panel is coming from on CSPE because we have the same issue with history. The panel may not like my asking the question, but we have to find a way to teach everything without overload. I am studying human rights at the moment and I have a great grá for what the panel is saying. I know what they mean about the hooks for understanding when it comes to rights. Would the panel consider a merger between history and CSPE? They are complementary.

My final question relates to the issue of physical education. For me, it is a no-brainer that it should remain. I have one child just out of second level school and another just in second level school. She is not a natural sportsperson but he was a very natural sportsperson. I want her to realise and learn that to have a healthy mind one must have a healthy body and that physical exercise is crucial. We know all the arguments around obesity. The panel is correct to suggest that the problem has not been cracked in this country, because it is as much about nutrition and lifestyle. However, since many of our children are talented at PE, does the panel not agree that there is a major argument for keeping PE on the basis of the way children learn?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have some questions and Deputy McConalogue is keen to come back in again briefly. One issue that has been raised already relates to the existing problems with the junior certificate that have been identified. One problem with State examinations is that they contribute to six years of rote learning, or five years if we discount transition year. People are being lost in first or second year because they are simply not suited to the junior certificate as it stands. Either we keep the current system with all the compulsory subjects or we reform it. There is a move to make history compulsory as well as CSPE, PE, science and geography. If that happens there will be no reform; we will simply be keeping the current system. Will the panel comment on that?

Why does a student need a State certificate at 15 years of age? The State certificate makes it into a high-stakes examination. Why do we need a high-stakes examination if there is already such an examination at leaving certificate level? Most people stay on until leaving certificate level.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason is early school leavers.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that early school leavers will still be recognised with the FETAC certification. Ms Maguire referred to the role of teachers now under the junior certificate. Teachers at primary level carry out assessment of pupils. There is FETAC certification in the further education system that does not involve State examinations. We already have it in our system. The junior certificate is FETAC level. If other teachers can do it, why can second level teachers not do it?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the representatives of the ASTI comment on the fact that under the junior certificate there will be far more papers which be neither higher nor ordinary level? There will be equalisation or one level only. What are the thoughts of the ASTI on that?

One key rationale behind reform is to try to ensure that everyone stays engaged, and, in particular, that young men do not become disengaged. There is evidence that when moving from first year to second year boys become disengaged. My understanding is that part of the rationale for moving to one level, instead of a higher and ordinary level, is that we keep everyone together and the idea is to try to keep those students who are inclined to disengage from disengaging. On the other hand, this is problematic for those who may be higher achievers. If everyone is required to go at a similar pace, is there a possibility that they could become more disengaged because of the fact they are not being sufficiently challenged? Does having one level address the issue of disengagement? Does one level, as opposed to higher and ordinary level, in any way address the level of disengagement which we are trying to prevent?

Ms Sally Maguire:

I will start with Deputy McConalogue's original question about the industrial relations issues relating to in-service. At the moment, the only in-service that is beginning is for English teachers and school leadership. We have instructed our members not to attend those in-service sessions. That is not happening for our members at the moment. My understanding is that they are going ahead with Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, members but not our members.

That ties in with the questions from Senator Ó Clochartaigh and Senator O'Donnell about whether the Department was listening to us. It is astounding to think that the Department has not been listening to the practitioners up until now. Senator Ó Clochartaigh asked whether we were being sidelined because of our stance on the Haddington Road agreement. To be fair, I believe we are not. It is because of our stance on Haddington Road that the implementation group is starting. I am hopeful that we will be listened to this time.

If not, we are in a very serious state. Not only teachers, but management bodies and everybody else all say the same thing. We hope that we will be listened to now.

The in-service training is definitely not where it needs to be. One day in advance of a whole new programme for one set of teachers is ludicrous. It is beyond belief. There needs to be much more. It needs to be ongoing and there should be a commitment that it will be ongoing.

I teach students with special needs so I have serious concerns about the common level. I also have concerns about the priority learning units, PLUs, which are specifically for students with special needs. I feel, and I think other teachers of students with special needs would agree, that those are very specific for a very small number of students with special needs. There are many other students with special needs who now do ordinary level or foundation level papers who would be seriously challenged by common level. Ms Leydon will say more about that in a moment.

I would like Deputy Ó Riordáin to be very clear that we are not against change in any shape or form. I would not be as critical as he is of the current junior certificate. We fully accept that change is needed but if it is needed on this scale, it must be done properly.

We agree absolutely with Senator Healy Eames’ comment that the school certificate reinforces inequality. There is a move within the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, away from the school certificate to a general certificate. It would have neither the harp nor the name of the school. That raises many practical issues, such as who signs it, where it comes from and who stands over it, which must be ironed out, but we share the Senator’s concerns about that.

Senator O’Donnell mentioned short courses-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The optional short course has replaced compulsory mainstream subject matter.

Ms Sally Maguire:

Leaving aside the three we are talking about today, even in terms of the general issue of short courses, it will lead to significant inequity within schools. If there is someone on the staff with expertise in Mandarin or computer coding, or if the school can afford to pay somebody to teach such courses, that is great but what happens to the many schools that cannot do that?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has anybody done any research or study on the amount of learning that one takes away between the ages of 12 and 15 from a short course?

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously not because they have not happened.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is very important and it came up in respect of history because England and Scotland are now reintroducing history as a formal subject. I am not batting for one or the other but I would like to see the research for what I would call a middle mind, between the ages of 12 and 15. How does that mind respond or what is the research on that?

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That begs the need for piloting. Is there a plan to pilot this? There is none.

Ms Sally Maguire:

It has been piloted in 48 schools around the country.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a result that can answer the question?

Ms Sally Maguire:

Not quite yet. Those schools were divided into four groups, some dealt with short courses, others with all the different aspects of assessment implementation and statements of learning, the learning outcomes and the key skills and so on. The different groups had different things to focus on. We have no result because that is not finished. It is very much a work in progress.

Ms Sally Maguire:

Senator O'Donnell said she is the result of great teaching. I am the result of great teaching by her mother many years ago.

Ms Moira Leydon:

It is a great strength in our body politic that the Members of the Oireachtas have demonstrated such a thorough understanding of the issues at hand. They are very familiar with the policy, the concerns and the broader policy context.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the only time educators get praise.

Ms Moira Leydon:

It is very inspiring and encouraging and underlines the importance of this type of forum where we can communicate concerns and have rational and informed debate.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry to interrupt but there is a vote in the Seanad.

Ms Moira Leydon:

Two statements have struck me. My colleague, Ms Maguire, referred to a work in progress. Piloting is a work in progress and that is very important but part of the problem is that education is such a culture-bound activity. People cling to the familiar, to what they know. From the outside perspective that might seem strange. Why are second level teachers so hung up on the harp and the State certificate? We have made the point that since the foundation of the State, the State certificate exam has been a structuring pillar of our education system. There are flaws in it, as there are in every educational system but we are making the point that on balance, given the new dispensation with the framework, a national State certificate does play a levelling role across our education system. There are invidious debates about feeder schools and high performing schools, league tables, etc. That is the reality within which Irish second level education operates.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It makes it worse.

Ms Moira Leydon:

Having the national certificate is one way to give every single school and child in the country a common statement of affirmation and approbation, and for those social, rather than educational, reasons we have a strong position on retaining a State certificate.

Mr. Chris Macey:

Deputy Ó Riordáin asked about PE. Only 10% of children receive the minimum recommended amount of PE in Irish secondary schools. We are not asking for retention of the status quo. We are asking for implementation of the recommendations and of stated Government policy.

Obesity was once a rich person’s disease but now it is a poor person’s disease. Unhealthy food is getting cheaper because that is where the money is. The food industry is finding ways to make unhealthy food, which is popular, cheaper, and as a result healthy food seems more expensive. A man who has had a heart attack helps some of our promotional work. His family used to eat fast food five days a week before he had his heart attack. Now they have it four days a week because it is cheaper to order in a family pizza than to cook a proper meal.

In response to Senator Healy Eames’s point about strong and weak performers in the field, we know, and research shows, that in team sports there is a concentration on winning and competition, which is great for the students who are good at sport but is not good or encouraging for those who are not. By all means develop elite sports people - we need them - but remember the majority.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everyone needs exercise.

Mr. Chris Macey:

Yes. Every child needs exercise.

Mr. Des Hogan:

On the question of scrapping the school certificate, the commission has not considered this so we do not have a position on it. The approach the Senator suggests is probably correct, to assess it from the point of view of equality and human rights impact. What would its impact be in terms of levelling or equality outcomes?

If it seems that marginalised, disadvantaged communities or groups within those communities will be removed from whatever is being proposed, then one needs to think about how the proposal can be modified. This feeds into the short course question which is the question of how to fit everything into nothing or in terms of adopting one system over another system. Looking from the point of view of a UN committee, it would want to know whether studies or assessments were carried out before a radical or structural change was implemented. It would look at the timeframe and ask for examples to show that a change can offer compensation. I anticipate there will be questions for the State from international bodies with regard to CSPE.

Ms Maureen Mulvihill:

Deputy Ó Ríordáin asked why some students are not taking part in PE. As Mr. Chris Macey said, we are not arguing for the status quo, but for an improved situation. A recent report was published by the Irish Sports Council on participation in physical activity and sport. It has made very strong recommendations, for example, that the school system must obtain sustained government support for PE and that PE must be recognised as a mandatory, essential and properly resourced curriculum subject. These recommendations were made on the basis of discussions with the Department of Education and Skills and various agencies, including Physical Education Association of Ireland, PEAI, Teacher Forum and other players. It has long been recognised and is probably true of one or two other subjects that PE has never had the value and emphasis it deserves on the curriculum. We do not even meet the current recommendations of our own Department.

Ms Fidelma Joyce:

On the idea of having a civics or citizenship subject in the curriculum, it has been a compulsory part of the curriculum since 1966, for the reason that every young person should have a basic knowledge of how he or she should be active in society. The current CSPE curriculum is a much more evolved curriculum. It deals with a lot of contemporary and relevant issues. There are issues about its implementation and the Irish Human Rights Commission was the first to raise those concerns. However, it is a compulsory subject. We have advocated for a deepening of human rights in the curriculum, to regard CSPE as a cornerstone and to incorporate human rights into any review of other subjects. For example, history is a very clear example of a subject which can incorporate human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 is a very important document in the historical context. I refer to the importance of geography and climate change and humanity. There is a lot of scope to introduce and embed human rights in other subjects. In our view every young person should have the opportunity, through CSPE, to actually get a basic grounding in human rights and equality and to develop the skills to be active citizens. The way CSPE is framed with the action project gives students a lot of practical support. We support any reforms in the curriculum that introduce these kind of active assessments which are not based on rote learning. We know that more can be done. It is unclear how a subject which has been compulsory since 1966 and which is subject to a State examination since the late 1990s is now being downgraded to a short course while, at the same time, it is planned to introduce a very exciting subject in the senior cycle called politics and society. In our view, CSPE should be available for every young person as a basis and a foundation and then they may progress to choose politics and society. CSPE is a very strong promotion of study of the humanities.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will conclude the meeting. I thank the witnesses and also the members of the committee for their contributions.