11.3 Curriculum

11.3 Curriculum

Getting the curriculum right

When the last Chief Inspector’s Report was published, it noted the definitive move that education systems were making worldwide to emphasise to a greater extent than before, the importance of enabling children and young people to apply knowledge creatively and to develop a range of skills to equip them adequately for the 21st century. These skills were those that would enable them to engage in lifelong learning, to work in a rapidly changing environment, to live healthy lives and to participate as active and informed citizens in an inclusive society. At its core, this shift in the curriculum experience to be offered to students seeks to emphasise that enabling young people to acquire knowledge remains essential but is insufficient; that education systems serve young people best if they also foster their ability to apply that knowledge creatively, to work collaboratively to solve problems, to think critically, to communicate effectively, to adapt flexibly, and to make healthy and informed choices.

In the period covered by this report, the need for this type of education to be adopted in our education system has simply grown more obvious. The pace of technological change, the scale of the global environmental challenges facing us, the seriousness of the threats posed by the use and mis-use of social media, and the risks all these pose to our economic, social and personal wellbeing are just some of the factors that illustrate the need for us to equip our young people for a very different and challenging world. At the same time, these challenges illustrate how we need to foster different intelligences, dispositions, values and learning styles among learners, (for example visual, linguistic, logical/mathematical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal), partly because they will need to utilise all these strengths and skills to create innovative solutions, and partly because we should value the contributions these intelligences can make to the realisation of an equitable, diverse and inclusive society.

International developments in curriculum and assessment

Work on advancing curriculum change has been slowed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, at international level, bodies such as the OECD and the EU Commission have continued to develop thinking about how 21st century skills can be incorporated more effectively into education systems. The EU Commission, for example, has advocated for the adoption of these skills into the national curricula of its member states.165 It has sponsored research on how some countries have attempted to advance such curriculum change with a view to disseminating good practice in this regard.166 Key messages emerging from that research point to the importance of fostering an understanding and acceptance of the type of change that is to be implemented among teachers, parents and students; the value of involving teachers and students meaningfully in shaping the implementation of curriculum change; the importance of investing in the skills of teachers and school leaders; and the absolute necessity to align teaching, learning and assessment.

Conscious that what gets assessed often has a powerful impact on what schools and other settings teach, the OECD has advanced work on how skills such as creativity and social and emotional skills might be assessed, and it has continued to evolve its PISA tests in the areas of Science and Mathematics to test how well students can apply knowledge in dynamic, online contexts. The OECD has also continued to advance its work on Education 2030, a project to inform thinking on what school curricula should look like in the next decade. Bodies such as the Atlantic Rim Collaboratory (ARC), which has brought together ministers, officials, teacher leaders and educational thinkers from a number of systems from Nordic, European (including Ireland), Canadian and American jurisdictions, have also examined the requirements of such curriculum change, especially as it relates to teacher education, student well-being and policies for social inclusion.167 Throughout Europe, many education systems have advanced efforts to reform their curricula and assessment practices in light of this work.

165 See, for example: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Conference on supporting key competences development : learning approaches and environments in school education : conference report, Brussels, 12-13 November 2019, Publications Office, 2020 166 See, for example, the following forthcoming publications: Looney, J., O’Shea, M., Staring, F., Vicentini, L., Wiśniewski, J., Frøhlich Hougaard, K., and Day, L. (2022, forthcoming). Key competences for all: Policy design and implementation in European school education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; and Looney, J., O’Shea, M., Staring, F., Vicentini, L., Wiśniewski, J., Frøhlich Hougaard, K., and Day, L. (2022, forthcoming). Key competences for all: Policy design and implementation in European school education, Recommendations and guidelines for policy makers. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 167 See details of ARC summits at https://atrico.org/summits/

Thinking about curriculum development has also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging themes include consideration of the ways in which the curriculum experience may be more personalised for learners because of the advances in ICT, ways in which instruction may capitalise on the strengths of both synchronous and asynchronous learning, and a continuing emphasis on pedagogy that is learnercentred, inquiry-based, authentic and powerful.168

Lessons from junior cycle reform

In Ireland, the most significant element of curriculum change to have been advanced in the period covered by this report has been reform at Junior Cycle. As this report is finalised, third year students in Irish post-primary schools are completing the third and final year of their junior cycle programme. This cohort of students will be the first to complete all of their subjects in the new formats developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) and introduced as part of junior cycle reform. They will complete classroom-based assessments assessed by their teachers, as well as final examinations that will be set externally and marked by the State Examinations Commission in summer 2022. This reform was launched in 2012 in less than favourable circumstances, as education, like all public services, experienced restrictions in spending in the wake of Ireland’s economic crash. Some aspects of this programme of reform were controversial, most notably the introduction of elements of school-based and teacher-implemented assessment as part of the overall assessment of the student’s learning. The initial implementation phase was mired in industrial relations difficulties which delayed the development of curricula and assessment arrangements, and the roll-out of professional development. None of this helped to create an atmosphere in which stakeholders could focus on an agreed programme of change.

Nevertheless, significant investment was made in offering sustained professional development for teachers (through the Junior Cycle for Teachers national support service) and in providing large numbers of additional teachers and additional school management capacity to the post-primary school system. As discussed in Chapter 5 above, there is some emerging evidence that at least some key elements of the junior cycle changes are proving their worth, although much work continues to be required to achieve all that junior cycle reform promised. Teachers and inspectors report that there is a greater emphasis in teaching on the sort of skills incorporated in the new specifications for each subject on the curriculum. There is also a greater emphasis on areas of learning that support student well-being. Assessment has been broadened to include not only terminal, summative examinations but also classroom-based assessments where a broader range of skills may be demonstrated by students and assessed by teachers. Most significantly, there is evidence to suggest that the provision of teacher time for out-of-class professional duties, including engagement in moderation meetings, has created welcome opportunities and impetus for the sort of professional dialogue among teachers that is known to improve teachers’ practice.

The challenge of senior cycle reform

The challenge now facing us is to reform the curriculum and assessment experience at Senior Cycle. This will be a considerably more challenging task than reform at Junior Cycle. There are many aspects of senior cycle education that work well at present and which students, teachers, parents and others will want to see safeguarded. For example, at present, we perform well when compared internationally against other high-performing systems and the data shows us as having a relatively high-performing and equitable system. We have also been very successful at retaining high proportions of students in second-level education and lowering early school leaving. However, simply replicating what we do well now will not be adequate for young people in the years ahead; it will not ensure that Irish school leavers continue to be regarded as among some of the best in the world; it will not ensure equitable outcomes for Irish students and Irish society.

Irish upper secondary education has not altered fundamentally since the 1990s when Transition Year was introduced and the differentiated programmes of the Leaving Certificate, the Leaving Certificate Applied (LCA) programme and the Leaving Certificate Vocational Programme (LCVP) were introduced. While these have provided differentiated pathways for students, the established Leaving Certificate has become more and more dominant, while onward progression beyond second level education for those completing LCA and LCVP programmes is more limited. Students with special educational needs, who currently have Level

168 Zhao, Y. and Watterston, J. The changes we need: Education post COVID-19, Journal of Educational Change 22, 3–12 (2021). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09417-3

1 and Level 2 programmes available to them at Junior Cycle have no equivalent programme at Senior Cycle. As discussed in Chapter 10, there is also a growing appetite for change in the way student learning is assessed, partly to lessen stress for students, but also to ensure that we assess and accredit a broader range of skills and competences and lessen the rewarding of ‘rote learning’ of knowledge.

It is to be welcomed that the NCCA, aided by the OECD, has engaged in a detailed and highly consultative examination of Senior Cycle to chart a possible way forward. At the time of writing, the Minister for Education is considering the NCCA’s proposals. In moving forward, it will be essential that we strive to create a consensus for evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) change if we are to achieve the sort of development that will sustain Irish learners into the future. Senior Cycle is a phase of education that has a very obvious, long-term impact on the lives and life-chances of individual students. The extensive changes to specifications and syllabi, and the substitution of emergency measures such as calculated grades and accredited grades in place of examinations during the pandemic, have undoubtedly created a greater appetite for change, but they have also led to simplistic notions that senior cycle change can be readily achieved overnight. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to build understanding and trust in the evolutionary change that is necessary, most particularly among teachers, school leaders, parents, students and the wider public.

Building trust and collaboration at Senior Cycle

Building that trust takes time and will require sustained commitment over many years. It will also require investment in teachers’ skills, in leadership capacity and in our initial and continuing teacher education providers. Investment in our ability to assess and report on students’ learning will be especially important: assessing a broader range of skills fairly and equitably, ensuring adequate quality assurance of assessment practice, building the capacity of the system to use and understand more diverse forms of assessment – all of these will require imaginative work at the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, at the State Examinations Commission, in teacher education provision, among school leaders, in external school evaluation and inspection, and among policy makers.

Strong stakeholder collaboration – and especially with students and parents – proved its worth during the COVID-19 pandemic; it will be equally important in shaping and implementing senior cycle reform. Senior Cycle education also links closely to the worlds of work and further study. This means that effective changes in learning and assessment cannot take place at upper secondary level without strong linkages to, and reciprocal changes in, the world of further and higher education and in the access routes to this tertiary educational provision. It is worth noting, for example, that like the current structures of the established Leaving Certificate, LCA and LCVP, the defining features of the modern Central Applications Office (CAO) points system also have their roots as far back as the 1990s and the last significant review of points allocations was initiated almost a decade ago in 2012.169

Advancing curriculum and assessment change at primary level

In the period covered by this report, the NCCA has also commenced a wide-ranging consultation on how the primary curriculum should be evolved. This work was also delayed by the COVID-19 emergency, but has been re-invigorated at the time of writing. The evidence from inspection suggests that the scale of the change that is likely to be needed at this level is less significant than that at Senior Cycle, but the lessons from junior cycle reform and the factors discussed above about senior cycle change are equally applicable. Teachers need to know that we value what is effective in current practice and that we are seeking to build upon that strength. Adequate investment is required in teachers’ and school leaders’ skills, and in resourcing teacher and leadership time for professional development and collaborative working. The need to ensure that the views of pupils/students and parents are given a central role in the decisions made about evolving the nature of the curriculum will also be very important.

169 In 1991, the Central Applications Office and the Central Admissions Service decided to combine their admissions procedures so that students would have to complete only one joint application form for third level places. The common points scale came into operation in 1992. The points allocations were last adjusted in 2012, partly to accommodate bonus points for Mathematics.

Curriculum transition from early learning and care to primary

One aspect of curriculum change that will need to be tackled in the evolution of the primary curriculum is the need to ensure greater coherence between curriculum experiences in ELC settings informed by Aistear, the curriculum framework for early years education, and the curriculum experience for four and five year olds in primary schools. As discussed in Chapter 4 above, work is required to ensure that the learning experiences of four and five year olds in primary school is aligned sufficiently with best practice in early years education. There is also need to consider the implications of the later starting age of children in primary school on the content and delivery of the primary curriculum, on the potential age range within classes, and at various stages of schooling.

Specific curriculum issues and initiatives

When the last Chief Inspector’s Report was issued, it expressed some concern that a number of curriculum initiatives had been launched simultaneously, including strategies to improve language teaching, wellbeing, STEM education, digital education, creativity and Gaeltacht education. These had been introduced in parallel with ongoing change at Junior Cycle, and the report expressed a concern that the capacity to implement such change at school level was finite. Since then, other initiatives have been initiated as necessary, including work on SPHE at post-primary level and a curriculum for Traveller History and Culture, and work on anti-bullying measures, which will also have an impact on the curriculum of schools.

Advances have been achieved in a number of these areas during the period covered by this report: development, pilot or project work has been underway in areas such science education, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Gaeltacht education, and education for sustainable development, and significant investments have been made in implementing the Digital Strategy. The roll-out of the Primary Language curriculum has proceeded, albeit after some revisions to the curriculum. Creativity in schools has been fostered by initiatives supported by Creative Ireland/Creative Youth. Curriculum development work has also advanced on Social Personal and Health Education (SPHE) and Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) and on Traveller History and Culture. At the time of writing, work had also commenced on the revision of anti-bullying measures for schools. Nevertheless, it remains the case that there is a limit on schools’ capacity to absorb and implement curriculum and other changes, and that dealing with the COVID-19 emergency absorbed almost entirely the capacity of school leaders to lead and monitor meaningful change.

The establishment by the Department of Education of the Primary Education Forum, where education stakeholders have been able to discuss the pace of such initiatives at primary level, has been very valuable. A collaborative approach with stakeholders also underpinned the work at post-primary level of the Advisory Group on State Examinations (that supported the delivery of calculated grades in 2020 and accredited grades in 2021). A similar collaborative approach was also used to address the challenges experienced in sustaining the operation of schools at both levels during the pandemic. Building on this level of stakeholder involvement would provide a strong basis for the sort of phasing needed for curriculum change in the future. So, too, could a carefully integrated and planned programme of curriculum change, in which adequate time is provided for the embedding of new practices by teachers and school leaders, and their monitoring through self-evaluation, inspection and research.

Irish

The previous Chief Inspector’s Report pointed to the unsatisfactory situation regarding aspects of the teaching and learning of Irish at primary and post-primary levels. Excellent progress has been achieved in implementing the Policy on Gaeltacht Education, with the vast majority of Gaeltacht schools joining the Gaeltacht School Recognition Scheme. Officials in the Department’s Aonad um Oideachas Gaeltachta led this work while inspectors from the Department of Education and staff from An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta provided extensive on-the-ground support. An Irish-medium Bachelor of Education course for primary teachers has been established, the Postgraduate Masters in Education (PME) course for secondlevel teachers in Irish medium schools has been expanded, and a post-graduate Masters programme has been established for teachers and school leaders working in Irish-medium settings.

The evidence available so far suggests that Gaeltacht schools are benefitting from the professional development and additional teaching resources provided to them, and are making considerable progress in ensuring that high quality educational provision is available through the medium of Irish in Gaeltacht areas. Collaboration with Gaeltacht communities and organisations and with other Government departments, through the Advisory Committee on Gaeltacht Education, appears to have been beneficial to the implementation of the Policy. The Inspectorate looks forward in the coming months and years to carrying out an evaluation of the work of schools seeking full recognition under the Gaeltacht School Recognition Scheme.

The accounts in Chapters 4 and 5 comment favourably on the standards of the teaching and learning of Irish in Irish-medium schools outside the Gaeltacht. Nevertheless, not all students outside the Gaeltacht have the option of attending Irish-medium schools, particularly at post-primary level. It is to be welcomed, therefore, that, as this report was being finalised, the Minister for Education and her Department had commenced work on the development of a policy for Irish-medium schooling outside the Gaeltacht and were in the process of commissioning research to inform its writing. An advisory committee to ensure the involvement of stakeholders was also being established. Given the success of the approach adopted in the Gaeltacht, it would seem highly likely that a similar approach could be used to expand the availability of Irish-medium education and strengthen its quality. If pursued, the education system could take a very significant step to strengthening Irish language usage and vitality in this way.

The picture regarding Irish in English-medium schools over the course of this Chief Inspector’s Report is less positive. A revised Irish curriculum for primary schools has been published as part of the integrated Primary Languages Curriculum (PLC) but, as discussed in Chapter 4 above, the implementation of the integrated PLC proved challenging for schools. Evidence from inspections suggests that when schools struggled with the revised curriculum, they prioritised the teaching of English in English-medium schools and Irish in Irish-medium schools. As a result, we have not seen a significant improvement, as yet, in the teaching of Irish at primary level in English-medium schools. The break in schooling arising from COVID-19 lockdowns has also had a negative impact, given that students did not have the same classroom opportunities to listen to, and develop competence in, the use of Irish.

At post-primary level, a diversified curriculum at two levels (at L1 for native speakers and students in Irish-medium schools, and at L2 for second language learners) was introduced as part of junior cycle reform. The rationale for this, set out in the 20-Year Strategy for Irish and the Policy on Gaeltacht Education, was to ensure that adequate learning opportunities and challenges were provided for the range of learners engaging with the language.

Work was commenced at the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) on a revision for the Leaving Certificate Irish course also, but this work was delayed, partly by the pandemic, and it is not due to reach a conclusion until late 2023. Different approaches have been advocated including parallel specifications at L1 and L2 (as used at Junior Cycle) and the provision of two separate subjects – such as Irish and Advanced Irish. Both solutions seek to address the range of language abilities of students; there has been concern for some time that the learning challenge provided to first language speakers of Irish by the Higher Level Irish specification is not on a par with that posed for first language speakers of English by the Higher Level English specification. Whatever the eventual outcome, it will be essential that students of all abilities have learning and assessment opportunities available to them that will enable them to demonstrate their competency in the language and have this competency accredited and rewarded appropriately.