Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Seanad Éireann: notes that we are currently in the midst of a decade of commemoration of the historical events that led to the foundation of the State;

 further notes that, while the State is articulating the value and premium it places on a younger generation being knowledgeable about that history, they are at the same time carving up history as a core/compulsory subject for the Junior Cycle; and

 calls on the Minister for Education and Skills to outline what plans she has in place to maintain history as a core/compulsory subject for the Junior Cycle.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The late Neil Postman, one of the most radical thinkers on education, believed that for education to be meaningful, young people, their parents and their teachers must have a common narrative. I ask if we have a common narrative. If we do, how can the Department of Education and Skills challenge the truthful, arms-length nature and objectivity of the external examination correction process, provide 25 more points for mathematics than for music, language or history, and undermine history teachers by weakening their subject, changing it from a core subject to an optional subject on the junior cycle? We need to have a conversation in this country about the types of knowledge that are fundamental to young people's education and quality of life. I refer to knowledge that can help us to contradict the accepted, more modern and tired ways of thinking about ourselves. We have a tendency in this country to have conversations about examinations only. If we had a real conversation, we would consider history to be as important as mathematics. We would possibly make music compulsory to age 18, the arts would be examinable forms and standardised and not a parallel of television, dance would be a core subject, and, most important of all and a matter that is very dear to me, orality would be an important independent subject, with human vocal communication and engagement at its foundation. Regarding orality, I am not talking about debating class. We are languaged human beings and our speech is our greatest and most wonderful method of communication.

The National Council for Curriculum Assessment, or NCCA, has created the most outstanding statements of learning for the new junior cycle. The statements include words such as "communicates," "reaches," "creates," "appreciates," "critically interprets," "recognises," "uses," "describes," "illustrates," "predicts," "improves," "values," "learns," "understands," "makes," and "takes". There were 24 statements of learning, but the NCCA left out the following three main verbs: imagines, feels and thinks. Imagination is its own reward, and feeling, if it is good, is based on thinking. As such, I feel and I think they should have got an airing. Some subjects will lock into some of these aspirations while others will lock easily into others. However, great subjects lock into them all. The study of history does it all: not just one or two or three or four of the aspirations and verbs such as "values" and "recognises," but all of them, including "imagination," "feeling" and "thinking." The NCCA should have spent more time writing and arguing about the brilliance of subjects rather than listing formulaic verbs that it hoped everything and anything would fit into.

History is to become a non-core, possibility non-compulsory and discrete subject and short course choice. Short courses do not work with young minds. They are not the kind of joined-up education we should be engaged in with young minds. They only work at a mature and postgraduate level. Anyone who knows anything about education and teaching knows that. The only areas of study the students in DCU take away with them are the core elements on their courses, not the short courses. In university, short courses represent a kind of entertainment. Young minds need a broad sweep of history and a defined and lengthy foundation block to encourage the subject later on so that it does not become the preserve of the elite. Above all other subjects, history belongs to us all. According to Professor Diarmaid Ferriter, all children have a public ownership of history. He is correct. It can never become the right of the elite. At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection two years ago, attended by the History Teachers' Association of Ireland, Dr. Catriona Crowe and Professor Diarmaid Ferriter argued that every child had an entitlement to history and that it could not be a dip-in-dip-out facility. The Department of Education and Skills cannot tell me that young people will get this entitlement from two or three short courses. History is more important than most subjects because it is our heritage and how we explain ourselves. It tells us who we are, what we are, how we are and why we are. As Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh said, it creates citizens, not consumers. I do not agree with everything he says, but I agree with that.

History creates citizens, not consumers, and that is all we need to know about it. It is all the justification we need, not 24 statements of learning. Why did the NCCA not argue that on curriculum assessment? History is a discipline, not entertainment, neither in education generally or elsewhere. Why has the Department become so afraid of the words "discipline," "rigour," "study," "work well done," "memory," "learning" and "hard work"? History is a skill, a crafted knowledge, a form, a way of learning, a thought process, a language, a memory, a fact, evidence, an interpretation, a culture, our lives - our complete lives, a life that is local, national and international - our place in our lives, and our place on the planet. It is the reason we live the way we do; it is beyond essential for all young adults beginning life in the junior, middle and secondary cycle and beyond, and it is taught by specialist teachers. What happens to history when it becomes a short course, module or choice rather than a core, elemental subject? It becomes less coherent. It becomes more represented in the middle classes and less represented in working-class areas, where more useful or easier subjects are taken. It will thereby become the preserve of the elite. History as a short course in the junior cycle will not be studied at leaving certificate level or third level, and the number of teachers in the system will fall. They fell considerably when the subject was removed from the core curriculum in the UK. Discussion is now taking place in the UK on how to reinstate it.

We are always busy copying something else, be it from New Zealand, Queensland or Finland. Why do we not lead the way? If we want to reform the junior cycle, let us get on with it. Have all the reform we want and lots of change. I am not against that, but this change has not been thought out. If we want to ignite change, let us make music compulsory for every child. Then we would have skill, love, passion, creative activity, maths, history, sound, score and melody all in one. Imagine that. That meets the 24 statements in one subject. The Irish Chamber Orchestra did it with Sing Out with Strings. Why, oh why, can we not copy the great rather than running around copying what we think works in other countries and might work here? We should not be applauding fragments of knowledge and a certain failure with some subjects, but we are doing so with maths. We are now saying that one may fail maths but one will really pass, because on the honours paper the marks will be given on the pass paper. It is ridiculous and a good example of the undermining of rigour, discipline and memory, fragmenting knowledge and a race to the bottom.

We do not need short courses; we need educational revolution and an educational rethink. If the history syllabus is over-laden with content and that is the greatest reason for the decline in the number of pupils taking history between junior and leaving certificate level, then throw it into fresh combinations, use imagination, thinking and feeling, which words are not used in the statements of learning, and do not relegate it to choice and short courses. Re-examine the subject and hold it as a core.Dr. Catriona Crowe called all of this for what it is when she spoke at the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection. She asked why we bother having core subjects at all, which is a major question. She referred to this question as "the elephant in the room". Why do we bother regarding some subjects as essential and fundamental to the rights to knowledge for all young people? I suggest we do this because we do not really regard The Beanoas a subject. Some forms of knowledge, including maths, English, history, the arts and languages, are regarded as compulsory. They are not disposable and cannot be disposed of or shortened. Why is now considered that history can be treated in this manner? Is it, as I have suggested previously, because it is too difficult, takes up too much time and requires more reading, writing, studying and memory and we cannot have that? I suggest we should be striving towards these very things, rather than diluting them. History is not cut and paste. It is not Internet, 500 channels, Facebook, Twitter and all of that tired nonsense.