Mr. Humphrey Jones:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and respected members of the committee for the opportunity to address them today on behalf of the Irish Science Teachers Association, ISTA, regarding the critical subject of curriculum reform at senior cycle and our experience of engaging with that process in recent years.

The ISTA is a long-standing organisation, founded in1961, representing approximately1,750 dedicated teachers across the country. Our members work tirelessly to promote science education through a range of voluntary activities, competitions and continuous professional development. We are privileged to be hosting the upcoming ICASE World Conference on Science and Technology Education at UCC in June 2026, underscoring our commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in science teaching both nationally and globally.

We fully support the imperative for curricular reform at senior cycle, recognising science as an ever-evolving field that necessitates regular review and updating. Our active participation in the reform process includes engaging with the initial consultation by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, on the background paper, representation on the NCCA’s subject development groups, SDGs, for biology, chemistry and physics, and the submission of a comprehensive report on the draft specifications, informed by our members’ insights. The introduction of new subject specifications for biology, chemistry and physics this September marks an important milestone.

While we acknowledge that many of our concerns raised during consultation, particularly regarding the depth of curriculum content, have been partially addressed in the final subject specifications, serious issues remain that threaten the success of the reforms. Of particular concern is the curricular development model itself and how work is conducted within the subject development groups. We have grave concerns about the handling of the consultation process and the treatment of submissions received. Despite substantial input from our members on the subject development groups, much of their professional expertise and feedback was disregarded, consultation submissions were neither shared nor transparently handled, and final specifications were ratified without allowing full discussion among the subject development groups.

We also have significant concerns about the additional assessment components, AACs, introduced in the new specifications. The 40% weighting allocated to the AACs was imposed by the then Minister, Deputy Norma Foley, without any consultation with the subject development groups. There are serious shortcomings in the proposed AAC model in the senior sciences in particular, which requires each student involved to carry out an extended, individual experimental investigation. While the model has potential in developing scientific skills, there is little acknowledgement of the stark realities of Irish science classrooms. The ISTA council formally dissociated from those components in December 2024 due to our ongoing and unresolved concerns, a position shared by representatives of the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland, ASTI, and the Irish Universities Association on those subject development groups.

Our concerns have been communicated publicly and privately, including to the Minister. First and foremost is health and safety. There are no clear protocols for the extended experimental investigations that students are now expected to undertake, often in unsuitable laboratories. Laboratory shortages and outdated Department of Education and Youth safety in school science guidelines, written in1996, exacerbate these risks.

Second, the explicit allowance of generative AI use by students without clear boundaries jeopardises the assessment's integrity. The comprehensive guidelines promised by the Minister, Deputy Foley, over 18 months ago arrived yesterday yet provide no guidance on its use in formal assessments like the AACs. Instead, we are promised another document from the State Examinations Commission in due course. The Government’s own AI advisory council, as mentioned previously, has repeatedly called for urgency on this issue, while the ISTA produced our own unofficial AI guidance to assist teachers in this regard.

Third, the disproportionate burden placed on science teachers is unsustainable. They must manage planning, procurement of equipment, safety and risk assessment, data monitoring and authentication for numerous investigations each year without additional time, adequate laboratory space, sufficient funding or legal protection. While the funding provided under the senior cycle redevelopment support measures is welcome, it is far from sufficient to equip laboratories or meet consumable needs. Crucially, there is no provision for laboratory technicians, as mentioned previously, which is standard practice in jurisdictions where experiment-based assessments contribute to overall grades.

We are also deeply concerned, like my colleagues here, about widening social inequity. Students in better-resourced schools with superior facilities, laboratory technicians and access to advanced AI tools gain an unfair advantage, contradicting the reform’s stated goal of equity and excellence for all. Student well-being is likewise at risk. The 40% weighting for the AACs heightens stress and anxiety, with knock-on effects on future progression. In the coming years, a student may be required to complete up to eight projects of this nature. We must reflect seriously on the impact such projects will have on their well-being. We are also concerned that students may choose to avoid studying science, thereby threatening national STEM ambitions and worsening the already serious challenges of teacher recruitment and retention.

In response, the ISTA has proposed a practical compromise: a pause and trialof the AACs to allow time for thorough health and safety updates, infrastructure audits, comprehensive AI guidance and independent evaluation of their impact on workload and well-being. We continue to call for audit-led funding improvements, genuine teacher representation with an independent chair on subject development groups, a fair rebalancing of marks to match the workload and strategic support for recruitment and retention. Despite repeated engagement attempts, including multiple letters to the Minister and a meeting with departmental officials in April 2025, our calls have been largely ignored. That said, the ISTA remains committed to senior cycle reform. We welcome the improvements achieved thus far and continue to support initiatives such as the Oide science team’s work on professional learning for teachers.

In conclusion, the ISTA calls for a collaborative, well-resourced approach that ensures student safety, equity and well-being, while adequately supporting teachers to uphold the high professional standards that Irish science education, and indeed our economy, demands. We thank the committee for its work.