Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This time last year, I proposed that the then Minister, Deputy Quinn, delay the implementation instead of going forward with English. Had he delayed it until the following September, the new Minister could have started English alongside science and used the interim period to try to get agreement with the teachers. She could have used the benefit of the fact that she was a new Minister to achieve it. However, Deputy Quinn decided to plough on, despite the fact that he could have delayed. It was a strong-arm tactic. He told the teachers that given they were employed by the Department, they had no choice but to teach the curriculum they were given. Despite the fact that a non-participation approach that was taken meant that not all teachers had participated in training, the strong-arm tactic of starting the process proceeded. Even if it is delayed, it has already started in that English has started and science is due to begin in September.

Unfortunately, the Government has left itself in a position in which it will be very difficult to achieve meaningful reform. There is not long left for this Government. There will be another strike at the end of the week. The teachers should not have called a strike but should have engaged with the Minister to move forward. The teachers were goaded into it by the Government's approach. It will be exceptionally difficult for the Minister to achieve it because of the way it has been done. The Minister made a mistake before the first strike.

The Minister's position with the teachers was that they would be obliged to take it and that, while she would negotiate with them, it would only be on the basis that they would agree to how she wanted the 40% to work. It was not a type of proposal that was designed to bring people to the table. The first strike took place and now, unfortunately, we will have a second strike. What needs to be reformed and those measures that would be highly beneficial for students are now further away than when the Government first came to office. Moreover, there is a chance that by the time the next Government takes office it will be even further away. This is the stark and unfortunate reality we face.

I believe the Minister and the teaching unions must continue to engage. I ask the teaching unions to put aside industrial protest and engage with the Minister. Moreover, what must happen is that this must be done through the prism of the student - that is, what will the actual curricular end result look like for the junior cycle student who will be taking it? How will such students be fulfilled and developed appropriately by the type of curriculum that will be offered to them? Consideration through a black-and-white prism of whether a particular type of project or activity is externally accessible will not necessarily achieve a curriculum that is to the greatest benefit of the students. I believe this is the method by which both sides must thrash out the detail in this regard because, unfortunately, detail has been absent at all stages of this process and political bravado has been to the fore. As a result, essential reform - the delivery of which is supported by my party - has stalled and it appears as though it may not be delivered without a change of approach on all sides. Consequently, I ask for this to happen. The Minister should note that teachers have genuine concerns, while there also is valid research in respect of the reasons for the proposals put forward. Both sides must try, in a spirit of partnership, to come to an accommodation that will deliver a reformed curriculum, which will benefit students, facilitate radical change in the education cycle and ensure the students get to develop their personalities and develop as people with multiple talents and different skills throughout their secondary school careers. This is something that the current formulaic and restricted curriculum does not achieve in the way it could.

See this speech in context