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

We are coming to the decade of commemoration and it is vital we continue to give students a sense of their history. How can we know where we want to go unless we have a real understanding of where we have come from? History was taught in an innovative way in most schools with different methodologies. The examination needed to be looked at because there was such a wide divergence between pass and honours level examinations in history. The new course will be introduced to first years in 2017, and like others I hope it will be a core subject that goes into detail.

There are, however, two statements of learning in the new framework, statements 8 and 9. Reading them I can understand the fear on the part of history teachers that the framework document will undermine the role of history in the junior cycle. Geography teachers are also worried about their subject. Students could end up under those two statements of learning studying a short course on cultural studies and after a visit to a place of historic or cultural significance, that is the end. Those visits, however, currently form part of the history programme.

I taught the old intermediate certificate course in English. It was restrictive but it had one valuable aspect that we have since lost - grammar. It is a horrible word and people do not want to hear it but students have lost the sense of constructing sentences, knowing nouns and verbs are necessary and how to be able to put sentences and paragraphs together. The junior certificate course in English is flexible and adaptable; there is a wide range of poetry, novels and plays that young people can be exposed to and teachers have that choice. During my years as a teacher, the examinations were fair at the three levels, foundation, pass and honours.

There is a fear among teachers that the design of short courses places another strain on an already strained timetable. There are definite issues of resources and time. Teachers are overwhelmed with in-service training days at this stage and no doubt there will be more in-service days under the framework for the new junior cycle.

There is a lot of controversy about school books. The publishing companies have done great work in producing English books at junior certificate level, there was a great variety that opened up teachers' and students' ideas to other poets or writers they had not considered. I would now fear that a publishing company will produce a text on a particular short course and that will determine what short course will be taken up in schools.

The new focus will mean continuing professional development for principals and teachers. This comes at a time of cutbacks and there is a sense in schools that this is a cost cutting exercise for the Department. So much has been put into in-service training for the current system but we are now into another system. It is almost as if what has happened in previous years is irrelevant and we are about to start all over again to reinvent the wheel.

I agree with continuous assessment. Every teacher already participates in that; we give homework, correct it and keep records. Those records are very beneficial for discussions with students and parents at parent-teacher meetings. It is different, however, for teachers to be judge and jury on the terminal examination for the junior certificate. The current examination is corrected fairly and anonymously. No one correcting is subject to outside influence. I feel for those teachers in schools and communities where they might be subject to pressure from parents they know well. School-based certificates are also problematic. Will certificates from certain schools be more prestigious than other schools? The junior certificate as it is did not present those problems. There was a fair system of correcting and appealing marks.

Many teachers do not agree with the first main examination being held five or six years after students come into school, with nothing in the meantime to prepare them for it. The reduction in the number of subjects, however, is welcome. The second language may not be a core subject. Anything that will create a sense of Irish being a spoken language must be welcome, as the Minister of State is aware.

There is a range of courses for pupils with special needs. Will certain courses be of a higher status? That would have administrative implications. There is reference in the framework to guidance and we know that guidance hours are being cut in schools. How will that connection be made?

I spent my life as a teacher drawing up statements of learning. Teachers buy into statements of learning every single day but they do it through the current system. The Minister made a point in his speech about putting children in first year into an ordinary or higher level. That does not happen generally. I would hate to put a student in a box at 12 years of age and say he or she would do pass and not honours courses. Most schools are fair and allow for the fact that children develop.

Quality learning is currently taking place. We must look at reform but we must not throw away what is good and positive in the present system, making change for the sake of it. There is a feeling, however, that the Minister just wants to get rid of what is there at present. There are so many other areas of need in education, such as the inequality of access for and the lack of representation of those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds at third level. If the Minister is looking for something new, there are other areas he can reform. On the question of consultation, a random selection of teachers would be a fair way to proceed rather than sending out an invitation for people to take part.

See this speech in context