Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills in view of the serious concerns regarding the subject of history in the proposed reform of the junior certificate, if he will consider including history as a compulsory subject. [32343/13]

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the new framework for junior cycle, schools will design programmes to reflect not only the key skills and statements of learning of the framework but also to reflect teacher qualifications and the identified needs of students. All junior cycle students will be required to study English, Irish and mathematics. Thereafter, schools will have the flexibility and autonomy to offer short courses and to choose from 18 other subjects, including history.

The vast majority of schools already offer history. More than 90% of students choose history although it is compulsory in only half our schools. Curriculum choice is important in motivating students to learn and to remain in school to completion of senior cycle. Overall, I am in favour of leaving the decision on what is offered at the discretion of each school. I emphasise the fact that 90% of all second level students are taking history.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the reply. No doubt there is much alarm and disquiet among those who teach history, among those in the History Teachers Association of Ireland, among people who teach history at third level, like Professor Diarmaid Ferriter, and people within the history industry such as Catriona Crowe from the National Archives of Ireland, at the way in which they see history being downgraded under these proposals.

We all believe that history should be taught as a full subject over a substantial period and in a chronological framework and that it should be seen as part of the core curriculum. What the Minister is suggesting as part of the new proposed junior certificate is the same as the way in which history is taught in transition year in a modular way. The Minister stated that each student will value local, national and international heritage. That is part of what happens in transition year. For example, a particular person, a particular event or a particular organisation might be examined. My school has studied the role of women in 1913 and in 1916 in particular.

The History Teachers Association of Ireland met the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection. A very involved, frank and open discussion took place. Did the officials report back to the Minister? Is the Minster in a position to take on board what was discussed at that meeting?

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As it happened I saw some of the debate that took place with the committee in the House. I am sympathetic to the study of history right through to sixth year, as are 90% of students who study the subject. I cannot quite understand why history teachers are so fearful that their subject is suddenly going to be abandoned. As Deputy O'Sullivan will be aware from her professional background, in the traditional free voluntary sector the subject is compulsory in many schools. However, throughout the entire spectrum of the 723 post-primary schools in the country it is not compulsory, yet 90% of pupils study it. There is clear evidence to suggest that if the curriculum, in terms of what is required to be studied by different students, is too prescriptive and does not allow for different interests to be expressed, then there would be early departures from the system. That would be a negative effect that I have no wish to bring about either. Anyway, I have every conference in the interest that Irish people have in history to ensure that the vast bulk of them will continue to study the subject, but not only as a project in transition year. That is not the intention. What the History Teachers Association of Ireland should do is engage actively with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment to discuss how their concerns can be addressed within the new curriculum.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The fact that up to now 90% of students have chosen the subject is no guarantee that under the proposed framework that will continue to be the case. We have something that is working, so why try to reinvent it? There is no doubt that the junior certificate history programme needed reform, especially in second year. However, the fear remains that it will not convey all the skills involved with the teaching of history, including literacy, numeracy, analysis, critical thinking and the question of how can we know who we are as a people unless we know where we have come from. It is also important in terms of teaching bias and the role of the media. I do not believe all of that will come across under the new proposal. We have seen the example in England, where changes were introduced. Someone made the point that when Margaret Thatcher died no one from a certain generation knew who she was. Perhaps that is not a bad thing, but nevertheless a certain point was being made.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The whole thrust of the junior cycle reforms serves to bring a holistic approach to teaching at second level, which we do not have at present.

If one meets primary school teachers, they will tell one they are teachers and that they teach children. However, I have heard too many secondary school teachers state they are history, chemistry or science teachers. It is precisely because of this silo concentration manifested by some, not all, teachers that we are trying to have a holistic approach to the curriculum at second level in order that it is similar to that at primary level. In that context, the use of history for a variety of differing learning outcomes will mean it retain its current primary role. The History Teachers Association of Ireland certainly has articulated these concerns and all I would say to those teachers is to engage productively with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, to work with it and to ensure the core values of an historical education are retained within the new curricular development. While I do not believe there is any conflict there at all, I recognise many teachers are fearful and I wish to address those fears.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While the suggestion of engaging with the NCCA is positive, I note the theme of a recent conference of the History Teachers Association of Ireland was, Will School History survive the "Decade of Commemoration"? It would be ironic if, in 2022, there were classes of young people who did not know what were those decades. I also wish to make a plea for geography, even though I was not involved in it, as they are two core subjects.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As 92% of all students study geography, for the life of me I do not understand what are the Deputy's fears in this regard. Is it that because the curriculum will be improved, the two most popular subjects which are taken voluntarily - nearly in the main - suddenly will disappear off the curriculum?

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not convinced it will improve.