ASTI Presentation to Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Social Protection
Introduction
The ASTI wishes to thank the Committee and its Chairperson, Ms Joanna Tuffy, for the
invitation to attend today. We are always mindful of the democratic space provided by the
joint Committees of the Oireachtas in which legislators engage in a very direct fashion with
civil society.
It is not our first opportunity to present the views of second level teachers on curriculum
change to this Joint Oireachtas Committee. However, today’s timing is significant as we
move towards the implementation date for the new Framework for Junior Cycle and as ASTI
members will engage in a further ballot on the Haddington Road Agreement next week.
What are the concerns of the ASTI?
It is now just over a year since the Minister for Education and Skills published his policy
document, A Framework for Junior Cycle. Since that time, the ASTI has been engaged in a
continuous process of consulting teachers, consulting principals and school managers,
consulting parents about aspects of the Minister’s proposals. From these consultations, we
have received core messages which we have brought to our discussions with the NCCA, the
Department of Education and Skills, and with the Minister himself.
These core messages are summarised as follows:
1) Teachers believe that aspects of the Framework has potential to improve the quality
of the educational experiences of 12- to 15-year olds.
2) However, teachers are not convinced that the assessment and certification model
will sustain educational standards.
3) Moreover, teachers see a widening gap between the policy aspirations and the
implementation strategy.
4) This widening gap is now a matter of concern for all the education partners.
No education system can stand still. The world in 2013 is vastly different to the world in
1989 when the Junior Certificate programme was introduced. The research has established
problematic aspects of students’ experiences and achievement in the current programme.
The Framework is an attempt to address these challenges. However, teachers remain to be
convinced that the assessment and certification model will achieve the desired outcomes of
better learning. Specifically, teachers do not believe that a model of assessment which is
exclusively school-based for all subjects (with the temporary exception of English, Irish and
Maths) can sustain educational standards. Teachers firmly believe that there must be some
external benchmark or quality assurance mechanism which can ensure that grades awarded
in a school-based assessment system can be validly and reliably compared across schools.
Teachers believe that the latter is important because it means that they can stand ove
professional judgements about students’ work which are guided by national norms and
standards. The latter is fundamental to building confidence in the new Framework; any
perception of bias in the new assessment model would undermine its integrity and purpose.
In the same manner, teachers believe that the replacement of the State certificate by a
school certificate detracts from a standards-based assessment system and could give rise to
perceptions of differential status of the new certificate depending on the type of school
attended.
Teachers have the biggest impact on learning
The ASTI must also put on record its view that while assessment is central to education and
must be aligned with teaching and learning goals, it is not the only – or even the major –
tool for improving the quality of young people’s learning experiences and their educational
outcomes. For schools to be effective, they must be supported in their work: they must have
services and personnel which enable them to meet their goals. Above all, teachers must be
supported through good teaching resources, including technology, and on-going
professional development; they must also be given time to engage with change.
The international evidence, from the OECD in particular, underlines that teachers have the
biggest impact on classroom learning and student outcomes. The message is clear: if we
want the new Junior Cycle Framework to work, we must listen to teachers. Unfortunately,
the biggest deficit in the current change programme is the poor provision for assisting
teachers to be effective implementers of the new curriculum.
At present, we have a fragmented implementation agenda from the Department of
Education and Skills. On Monday 25th, we had an opportunity to convey our concerns about
the Framework’s implementation strategy to senior Departmental officials. We stated that
schools need time for whole-staff training on the new Framework: there is no provision for
such training at present. We stated that aspects of the Framework should be deferred until
such planning is at least commenced. Specifically, we asked that the new English
specification not be introduced in 2015 to enable all teachers of English to familiarise
themselves with the new content and assessment model. We noted that under Project
Maths, teachers had at least nine full days inservice to enable them to master new subject
content: compare this to just three days inservice for English teachers to master new
subject content and new assessment practices. We stated that at present, a necessary level
of confidence does not exist in the new assessment model and that the Department must
listen to our views on the need for an external quality assurance process. We will continue
to make these representations to the Department of Education and Skills because teachers
and school management bodies are telling us that unless these issues are addressed, the
Framework will not work.
CSPE and PE in Junior Cycle
The position of CSPE and PE in the current Junior Cycle is certainly not as satisfactory as they
might be. For example, CSPE is allocated one class period per week or approximately 66
hours over the three year junior cycle. For a subject which aims to promote understanding
of complex social processes such as citizenship, human rights, equality and justice, this is
clearly an inadequate time allocation, especially in the context of activity based learning.
The most commonly cited problems with PE are lack of quality PE facilities and a more
general societal challenge of getting young people engaged in a sustained basis in physical
activities. Like many societal challenges, the latter cannot be solved by schools alone.
However, what must be of concern is the widespread lack of clarity on how both subjects, as
well as SPHE, will be delivered in the new Junior Cycle Framework. This lack of clarity is
symptomatic of a wider lack of information available to schools about how the new
Framework will actually happen on the ground. PE teachers in particular are fearful that the
current model of provision of PE which amounts to 198 hours over three years could be
displaced by the new short course in PE which amounts to 100 hours over two years.
Schools cannot operate in this information vacuum. Subject provision and school
timetabling are highly complex operational matters in schools. Schools cannot operate on
the basis of contingency: it is precisely because of this requirement that schools find the lack
of information, of guidance, of time for whole-school planning for the new Junior Cycle
Framework so unsettling and why so many teachers and principals feel a lack of confidence
in current policy.