Learning a lesson on curriculum reform

A SLOWED pace of change to subject courses, increased teacher-training days, and consideration of extra resources for schools were promised by Ruairi Quinn’s officials last Friday.

They were meeting teacher unions, representatives of school managers and parents, and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA).

The working group was having its first meeting 15 months after Mr Quinn announced controversial proposals which he came up with after considering NCCA advice on how to radically overhaul junior cycle, the first three years of second-level education. Crucially, he went beyond the statutory body’s recommendations on one question — who should mark the students?

The NCCA — which includes representatives of schools, parents, the Department of Education, and other interest groups — spent many years devising recommendations. Among them was that the State Examinations Commission (SEC) continue to set and mark written exams to replace Junior Certificate papers in June, with teachers assessing their students’ coursework in second year and third year.

A key question that has not been fully addressed is why Mr Quinn chose to ignore this key element and to introduce a system of entirely school-based assessment. Why do so when discussion of even partial school-based assessment was prompting caution by his own officials, as reported in the Irish Examiner today.

“Given our experience with Project Maths, the capacity of the system to switch to a school-based, more flexible experience will have to be considered carefully,” they wrote in a Mar 2011 briefing document Mr Quinn received when he took over at the Department of Education.

His spokesperson says this does not mean officials believed schools were incapable of the level of change then being discussed. But it is clear that they had reservations about some level of assessment in schools, never mind the entire assessment.

The revised maths syllabus they spoke about is still the focus of debate, having had a mixed effect so far on teaching methods and on student engagement and performance in the subject. Research on Project Maths for the department and the NCCA, reported in this newspaper last month, found exactly that.

The maths reforms have sought to do pretty much what the revised junior cycle would do — to give students better understanding of the principles of a subject, rather than simply how to answer questions and maximise exam results.

The concerns raised repeatedly by teachers’ unions since Mr Quinn announced the plans in Oct 2012 have centred mostly on the integrity of the process, which they say could be undermined by removing the independent marking of exams. One of his responses has been to point out that the junior cycle no longer represents the end of formal education for the vast majority of young people, given that close to 90% who sit the Junior Certificate go on to finish school, and so should not be as important a milestone. This is a fair argument, but one that teachers believe may not wash — particularly with parents, who often see the Junior Certificate as a dry run for the Leaving Certificate.

The minister has rightly pointed out that this is a fault of the wider system placing too much focus on exam preparation when younger students should be learning to think critically and develop other communication and group-work skills. His point is validated by a long-running study completed a few years ago by the Economic and Social Research Institute for the NCCA.

The same 2011 briefing notes to Mr Quinn from department officials pointed to pressure from parents as a likely factor in vastly increased numbers of schools offering the non-compulsory oral test in Irish for Junior Certificate since marks for the Leaving Certificate oral have increased.

School management bodies welcomed the assurances given on timing and supports by the department last Friday. So if all the evidence points to the importance of reform, and general support, why so much disagreement from teachers?

It appears to be about consultation and trust as much as — or perhaps more than — anything else. Teachers’ unions which engaged deeply in the process to design change saw the results significantly overlooked by the minister when he decided to abolish the Junior Certificate in favour of entirely school-based assessment (apart, in the initial years from English, Irish, and maths continuing to be marked by the SEC).

The clarifications and other proposals brought to last Friday’s meeting of the working group on junior cycle implementation were preceded two days earlier by the minister’s announcement of the new Junior Cycle Student Award name. Perhaps he wanted to get his message about reforms into the public arena before the possible rejection of the process by teacher unions.

His officials brought details to that discussion of provision for increased teacher-training, more professional development for principals, and increased time in schools for staff to discuss the changes collectively. There was also a commitment to address issues around resources like technology, staffing, and relevant middle-management support.

“The minister is committed to addressing the issues relating to posts in schools to support assessment and moderation. He is also committed to providing external resources to support assessment moderation in schools,” says one paragraph of the department’s eight-page document circulated on Friday. The department set out a timeline for meetings of smaller groups to identify exact supports and resources that would be needed, with a view to presenting the results to Mr Quinn for consideration.

The understandable difficulty for teachers may be that it has taken this long for constructive engagement on such a vital question.

But crucially, also, whether in this instance the minister will act on the advice that is presented or decide again to do things a different way.