Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for the opportunity to address the Seanad on this important issue.

As Senators know, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, was asked to undertake a review of the junior cycle curriculum in schools, to examine how creativity and innovation might be strengthened and curriculum overload and rote learning addressed. The review was undertaken against a backdrop of extensive longitudinal research, commissioned by the NCCA and undertaken by the ESRI. This research tracked the progress of some 900 students in 12 case study schools as they transferred from primary level and progressed through each year of junior cycle and senior cycle. For those Senators who have plenty of time on their hands, this is a fascinating read and I strongly recommend it. Hero teachers in first year become villain teachers in sixth year because they are not teaching to the points and to the examinations.

The study identified that while the vast majority of students generally coped well in school there was a significant undercurrent of dissatisfaction for some students, particularly those trapped in what are described as low ability groupings, who become increasingly disengaged from learning. By year 3 of junior cycle, students indicated that they were stressed, with many sitting ten to 15 subjects in the examinations, and experiencing the examination as exerting a significant negative backwash effect on teaching and learning.

The research has been particularly insightful in providing for a strong student voice in this debate. In addition, a study on national testing of pupils in Europe was published in 2009, and the Educational Research Centre completed a study, published in 2010, on standardised testing in lower secondary education. The famous PISA 2009 study also provided insights into the review, with Ireland showing a significant decline in standards in literacy and mathematics, but not in science.

Concerns have also been highlighted by higher education and industry interests, indicating that students are not acquiring the skills they need to become autonomous learners and cope with the demands of the knowledge society. Frankly, all the evidence is pointing to a need for change.

In February 2010, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment published a discussion paper, Innovation and Identity: Ideas for a New Junior Cycle, to initiate a major process of public consultation on the future direction of reform. The consultations included a national symposium, an online questionnaire, a blog, meetings with a wide range of interests, including educationalists, industry personnel, parents and students, and 40 written submissions. The recommendations submitted to me by the council build on this research and consultation and on extensive discussions with the education partners through the council's consultative structures. I would like to record my appreciation for the council's innovative and professional work in developing these proposals, which I endorsed recently. I have asked my officials to begin discussions on implementing the proposals with the education partners, so that the necessary planning and development work can take place.

Senators who are interested in examining the detail of the proposals can find them on the website of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, ncca.ie. They are also being circulated to the House, together with a short summary. I understand they have been e-mailed to Senators and can be downloaded by those who are interested in them. The proposals envisage that the existing range of 25 subjects in the junior cycle will be continued. The length of syllabuses will be reduced to 200 hours for most subjects and to 240 hours for the core subjects of Irish, English and mathematics. The option of offering additional short courses of 100 hours' duration will be open to schools. This would provide for school-based innovation and increased flexibility. A cap of eight subjects - or seven subjects and two short courses, or six subjects and four short courses - will apply to what can be studied for qualification purposes. I will come back to this later in my speech. In essence, we intend to impose a cap of eight on the number of subjects that can be studied to examination level. This limit is being proposed for good reasons. It will make time and space for active learning, embed key skills such as literacy and numeracy and put the focus on learning rather than on examinations.

Six key skills - managing myself, staying well, communications, being creative, working with others, and managing information and thinking - will be embedded in all subjects. Subjects will be assessed by means of a written examination set and marked by the State Examinations Commission and by means of a portfolio. The portfolio will be marked by the class teachers in the school, moderated by the school and subject to external moderation on a sample basis by the State Examinations Commission. Detailed arrangements for school and external moderation are being discussed with the commission. In general, the portfolio will attract 40% of marks and the written examination will attract 60% of marks, although that may vary by subject. Short courses will be assessed by means of a portfolio and will be subject to internal moderation by the school. The term "portfolio" may include practical tests or events such as school musicals in a short course context, as well as project or portfolio work. It will depend on the area of learning. I stress that all of this work will happen within the school space. It will not be done at home and brought into school. It will be possible to verify that it was done by the student in question.

The subject reforms will begin on a phased basis in 2014 ahead of the first examination in 2017. English will be the first subject to be implemented, in keeping with the priorities in the national literacy and numeracy strategy. Groups of subjects will be implemented thereafter on a phased basis. Change will be implemented at a pace which the system can sustain. I will come back to that if Senators want to explore what I mean by it. Report card templates will be developed by National Council for Curriculum and Assessment for reporting to parents on the progress of students. These will be available in 2012-13 for use by schools in 2013-14. As Members may be aware, the literacy and numeracy strategy provides for standardised testingin English and mathematics to be introduced in the second year of junior cycle as well as two assessments in primary. A review of the new forms of assessment will be completed by 2019 in order to inform the ongoing roll-out.

The NCCA has also proposed that there will be an additional award at level 2 of the National Framework of Qualifications for those students with special needs who find the level 3 programme unsuitable. This award will be based on five priority learning units - communicating and literacy, numeracy, looking after myself, living in a community, and preparing for work. Specifications will be developed by the NCCA. Assessment will be by means of a portfolio, with internal moderation by the school, and sample external moderation by the awards body.

The new Qualifications and Quality Authority of Ireland, Second Stage of the Bill having being passed by this House, has indicated a willingness in principle to certify at this level. FETAC already certifies a wide range of awards at levels 1 to 6 in the framework, including for special needs.

The proposals, therefore, are designed to provide a momentum for real change in the classroom. They balance bottom-up innovation through short courses, which can account for up to 25% of the award, with nationally set standards for subjects, a strong focus on student learning, a key shift in assessment towards more flexibility, and a greater role on the part of the class teacher. I believe that the proposals put forward by the council are designed to address the concerns already highlighted. I assure the Members, however, that much of the detail remains to be worked out and it is particularly important that we ensure the reforms address the needs of those who are currently least served by the system.

On assessment, I welcome the emphasis on the dialogue between student and teacher in the learning process, and the increased role of the class teacher both in assessment oflearning and assessment forlearning. I must stress that unless the examination changes, nothing else will. It is key to this process. That is reason I am determined that assessment reform must be an integral part of the reforms if we are to make real change in teaching and learning and, critically, in the student experience.

I fully accept the need for a deliberate approach to the issue of measuring learning. The new proposals strike a balance in this regard. There has been considerable concern in recent years about rote learning, and the examination system has been widely criticised as focusing on recall rather than on other critical skills. The assessment reforms in the junior certificate must be designed to address these issues, with students being asked to demonstrate their understanding and competences.

However, assessment alone cannot address this issue. It will take a concerted effort from all involved in education and a changed mindset across the community to ensure that the proposed reforms have the desired effects. We must think of students' futures and their capacity to be able to apply their learning in various contexts throughout their entire lives, rather than learning things off by heart for an examination. Short-term recall without real understanding will ill-serve their future needs and the needs of our society.

Great care will also need to be taken to ensure that the portfolio work is designed to promote important key skills and innovation, and that the learning objectives are not defeated by an overly formulaic or rehearsed approach. I am aware of the concerns highlighted regarding teachers being advocates for their students, and the changed relationship which would occur were they to adopt a formal assessment role for qualifications purposes. Teachers have an advocacy role but they also have a professional assessment role which is a normal part of the teaching and learning process. The tensions inherent in these roles are grappled with by teachers throughout the European Union, and entirely externally based assessment in lower secondary education context is a rarity.

I am also aware the history and geography teachers have expressed some disquiet about their subjects under the new dispensation but it is worth noting that geographical and historical awareness skills have been included in the 24 statements of essential learning, that is, that these skills will be required in order to achieve the required outcomes. Good and enthusiastic teachers in history and geography have the opportunity to inspire a real interest in their subject and so ensure that pupils will want to sit the examination. Overall, I am in favour of leaving the decisions on what is offered at the discretion of the school, and of students having as broad a range of options to choose from as possible.

I welcome the level 2 award proposed for those students with special needs for whom level 3 may not be suitable. While I am aware of the extensive guidelines for teachers which have been developed by the NCCA on how best to mediate the curriculum for students with special needs, the new level 2 award will address a particular gap in the system. The priority learning units within it are designed to support many students in their pathway towards independent living.

I want to stress that teachers and schools will be supported in making these changes by investment in professional development, particularly in the new roles of assessment and moderation. I am aware that the changes will not be easy and that we will face many challenges along the way, but we must recognise the need for change and the opportunities it will present for a more stimulating learning experience for our students.

I take this opportunity to thank the staff and the board of the NCCA, and those involved in its various committees, for their contribution to these ground breaking proposals. They have put learners and their needs centre stage in their deliberations.

This radically different examination needs a new name. For that reason, I have asked those directly concerned to give suggestions for a new name. I have formally written to the Irish Secondary Schools Union to consult with its members and to suggest a new name by the middle of December. I look forward to beginning the dialogue and development work with the partners in education to implement the reforms. I thank the House for the opportunity to debate them.