Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have no doubt a great deal of work has gone into producing the framework. When I came to read it I took a little trip down memory lane, having been a teacher in a voluntary secondary school. I taught the old leaving certificate course, the old intermediate certificate course, the new leaving certificate course, the newer leaving certificate course and the current junior certificate course. I went though the various other curriculum changes that came in during the course of my 35 or so years as a teacher. My school bought into so many things the Department introduced. I go back to the late 1970s when psychologists brought in the idea of developmental group work, which was totally new at that time. We took part in all of the training sessions for that. Another programme called PACE lasted a certain length of time and disappeared. My school was a pilot school for On My Own Two Feet. My own and other schools were receptive to other initiatives and programmes that were introduced. A recent one which was introduced shortly before I was elected to the Dáil was the Cool School initiative. It is a very good programme that ran very well in my own school and still does.

Then we came to school planning and the myriad of policies and plans that consumed my last ten years of teaching, took up so much time at staff meetings and was so consuming of teachers' time and energy. We had plans and policies for everything. Who was that for? I think it was just to satisfy the inspectors. I have grave doubts as to the benefit of those policies or what they added to my ability and the ability of others to teach. No amount of paper, policy or planning can substitute for the role of the teacher in the classroom and the teacher's ability to teach and connect with students.

Schools and teachers coped with all those developments and changes. They also coped with inclusiveness, welcoming students with special needs into mainstream classes and bringing in individual lesson plans for differentiated learning. They coped with mixed ability teaching, new technologies, leaving certificate applied and the new junior certificate as well as extra curricular activities. At secondary level, they also coped with the influx of foreign national students, some of whom came in as teenagers with not a word of English. That created a strenuous demand on schools. Of course, whenever a social ill came to the fore in society it was left to schools to look after it.

Teachers have shown themselves to be extremely flexible and adaptable. They are now coping with the recent funding cuts and the loss of so many experienced teachers through early retirement.

I can understand the frustration and reluctance of some teachers to take up another change, positive though aspects of it are. There are misgivings and reservations about some aspects of the framework. Last week, we debated the Credit Union Bill 2012 and Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI. Both credit unions and the old third level grant application system had positive things in them. They were in need of change but the expression, "throwing the baby out with the bath water" came to mind. There is an element of that in the new junior certificate framework. I want us to maintain what is good and positive and strengthen it instead of eliminating it and bringing in something else.

I am annoyed by the suggestion that nothing was achieved in the current system of junior certificate and, by implication, leaving certificate, because people are also casting doubts on the leaving certificate. We are doing something right, and we have been, because our graduates are sought in so many walks of life and by so many companies and institutions. I am always struck when I meet past pupils, and I have many of them after 35 years, with how well they have done in a wide variety of careers. They are articulate and hard working. Our current system produced that.

I had a look at the foreword to the framework and some of what the Minister said today. He said the new curriculum will focus on improving students' learning experiences. No teacher would be against that, but that is what has been going on. Teachers are constantly striving to do that and to make the learning experience meaningful. The Minister mentioned that a significant number of students do not make progress in first year, particularly in English and mathematics. They will not make progress unless when they come from primary school they have a certain standard of literacy and numeracy. I greatly welcome what the Minister is doing for primary schools but it is unfair to blame the junior certificate for that aspect. There is disengagement at second year for some, but changing the whole junior certificate is extreme. Other things are happening to young people at the ages 13 and 14 that can also contribute to that disconnect. Third year is challenging, but that is positive. Life is challenging and schools are supposed to prepare young people for life. Teenagers must be exposed to challenge, pressure and stress. When it happens in a school environment a student can be supported by teachers and staff.

The junior certificate does dominate third year. The Minister mentioned that the focus on learning narrows in that year. I would say a different focus of learning comes in at that stage. It is about preparing for an examination and is a useful exercise. Students are focusing on the examination, which is positive, and learning how to answer questions and to give answers that are relevant to the questions asked. There is a positive outcome because there is a sense of achievement in completing the examination. Some do not do as well as they could and should, but there is support within the school to deal with that. Some do better than teachers might have expected. We can look at that.

There has been mention of the emphasis on rote learning. Some rote learning is very good for the brain. The dumbing down of rote learning does it a disservice. Some rote learning is necessary at all stages of schooling, primary, secondary and third level. What one does with what has been learnt by heart is the kernel. I taught English. I encouraged my students well, I made them learn certain lines from poems, from the drama they were studying and maybe a quote from a particular critic. They would use those lines in their answers to develop particular points. That was the value of rote learning.

I am from the time when children learned tables by heart. I can rattle them off now. Today, a young person who is asked to add seven and six will probably reach for a calculator. We have to look at that one again. I recently met my Irish teacher from secondary school, cainteoir ó dhúchas í ón Daingean, and we discussed learning Irish poems by heart. This gave us a sense of how the words were to be said and we became familiar with the sayings and phrases. I am sure this also applies to French poetry.

I hope medical students do some rote learning so they know a certain list of symptoms indicate a particular illness rather than another one. I am sure the Minister did some rote learning as a student of architecture and that students of engineering, science and accountancy do the same. There are areas where rote learning is needed.

All teachers want their students to enjoy the learning experience and to benefit from it. Teachers are constantly motivating and encouraging students. Students have always been at the core of this.

I taught history. The junior certificate history syllabus did need reform. Young people really enjoyed first year, when they went back to pre-history and archaeology, studied the evolution of man and then looked at early monastic settlements. Much creative learning and different methodologies were used. Second year was difficult, because of the topics chosen for that year. The students bought into the third year syllabus because it looked at the modern world, at how our country came to be where it is today and at fascism, communism and socialism, social history and colonialism.

See this speech in context