Following a
lengthy period of consultation with teachers, students, parents and anyone who
wished to have a say, the NCCA has put forward a new Framework for Junior Cycle.
This has been approved by the Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn, and is due
to be implemented from 2014, meaning that children now in 5th class in primary
school will be the last to go through the Junior Certificate as we know it
now.
This new model
has drawn mixed responses. Given that it incorporates many of the
elements which our support group wished for in the Junior Cycle Portfolio which we submitted to the NCCA, we cannot be
anything but pleased!
The new framework will, in my
opinion, allow schools and teachers to
really get stuck in and do something innovative. No longer will the Junior
Certificate be all about rote learning and regurgitation in which success
depends on learning how to play the game and know how to score points on the
test rather than display knowledge and understanding of a subject. Now, there
will be the potential for students to explore areas which interest them to a
level which matches their ability. It should be all about learning to learn and
being excited by the process, rather than turned off by the whole idea.
However, the success of the new model will be very much dependent on the
attitude and skill of individual schools and teachers. Schools with
enthusiastic innovative leadership and passionate teachers will take it and
make it their own. I imagine that teaching
in such an environment will be far more enjoyable too and there are teachers
who are already champing at the bit to get going. Success will depend on the
ability of each school and teacher to engage students and create an environment
in which they want to participate. Enthusiasm is infectious.
There are, admittedly, many
challenges ahead. A high level of innovation will be required when it comes to
subject choices and time-tabling. If some students are preparing for the
end-of-junior-cycle exam in a subject, will all others taking that subject take
the same classes with them? Will this stunt creativity in that class? Much will
depend on the type of assessment/examination at the end. Let’s hope it doesn’t
perpetuate teaching-to-the-test. Cross-curricular modules or classes would be
very worthwhile, but how can these be facilitated while also preparing students
for the Junior Certificate exams in discrete subjects and at different levels? The ASTI has raised concerns about teachers assessing their own students' work. That will require integrity and professionalism on the part of teachers and trust on the part of parents, but it has been achieved in other countries, so there must be a way.
While it is important that we
strive to ensure that as many as possible reach certain minimum standards, recognition
for talent in other areas is to be welcomed. There are many valuable
life-lessons to be learned from participation in areas beyond the scope of the
current education system, such as the arts, technology and sport. No fifteen
year old should be made to feel a failure simply because they score poorly in
an academic setting. I suppose the question we must ask ourselves, is “what is
the goal of second level education?” Personally, I believe that it should be to
produce young adults who are equipped to go out into the world and to
participate in society as fully, positively and productively as possible, given their own
unique skill-set.
One element about which I have
some reservations in the standardised testing proposed for the end of second
year. There is value to this insofar as it allows schools to ensure that all
students reach a certain minimum standard. However, there is the risk that,
once this standard has been reached, the box is considered ticked and all is
well. For students of exceptional ability, all is not well at all. What is not
often appreciated is that these students may be able to perform at a level several years
above their grade level. Standardised testing allows no room for their ability or progress
to be monitored. With a ceiling in place, how do we know they aren’t, in fact,
disimproving over time relative to their own ability?
Then there are
those exceptionally able students who, for whatever reason, just don’t do well
in standardised tests. Some look at multiple-choice questions and, because of
their ability to think deeply and around corners, may see several possible
correct answers and not know which box to tick. Some may have a learning
disability which brings their score down. As long as it falls within acceptable
limits, they tick the box and their ability and disability, having masked each
other, both go unnoticed.
Having said
that, I believe that with a combination of the new Junior Cycle Framework and some basic
instruction on the characteristics and needs of gifted students during
pre-service teacher training, then such children could be far more easily
identified than at present. Indeed, the new model, implemented well, is just
the sort of environment in which these children could be allowed to stretch
their wings and learn how to use their ability with pride. It’s just a shame
that none of these changes will come in time for my own children to benefit.
There is so much I could comment on here that it would take more time that I have just now. So I will just say this much. The NCCAs document lacks all of the detail needed to implement such a programme, so in my humble opinion, no valid comment can be made on it as a 'reform programme' other than it looks like they rushed it out and decided that they would jump whatever number of hurdles they would ahve to jump when they come to them. However, most worrying is the first paragraph of the document which re-iterates the NCCA belief "that development also points to one of the most consistent and universal ironies of the change process in education, namely, that change can happen, but the student experience can remain largely the same. Educational change is one of those processes which has a habit of resetting itself back to how things have always been done." The is nothing more than a pre-emptive excuse in case it doesn't work out.
ReplyDeleteOne shouldn't mistake educational reform for money-saving schemes - which I suspect this one is. It is all the more odd considering the money which will need to be spent on developing this programme while the government is intent on cut teacher numbers.
Change is good - even occasionally when it is for its own sake - but it is hard to see any good in this.
I'd broadly agree with Peter. The rush to introduce a new programme seems to due to two things. A perception that PISA scores aren't what they should be and the current DES money-saving drive. Without funding for schools, training for teachers and support for students and their families this framework will be divisive and half-baked.
ReplyDelete