Towards a Better Future

Recommendations

Info

Chapter Three: Curriculum pressure from teachers, open courses were dropped and set texts were re-introduced in 1942. From 1924 until the 1980s, the Intermediate and Leaving Certificate programmes continued to consist largely of a disparate set of syllabi for a range of subjects – as had been the case under the old Intermediate Board. The Intermediate and Leaving Certificate examinations continued to dominate teaching and learning in second-level schools and ‘the examination was the tail that wagged the curriculum dog’ throughout the 20th century. (Hargreaves, 1989) In spite of significant curriculum changes at primary and secondary levels after 1922, there was little or no co-ordination between the new National Programmes at primary level (First and Second National Programme Conferences 1922 and 1926) and the Intermediate and Leaving Certificate programmes. Until the 1980s, review and revision of primary and secondary curricula were largely a matter for the Inspectorate, which submitted their proposals to the Minister for Education for approval (Coolahan with O’Donovan, 2009). Technical and Vocational Education, 1899 – 1970s The curriculum in technical schools had never been centralised, and even after the Vocational Education Act was passed in 1930, there was no national curriculum for vocational schools. It was not until the Day Group Certificate examination was introduced in the late 1940s that the semblance of a national curriculum and a national examination was introduced for vocational schools, and even after that date, individual schools had considerable autonomy in relation to curriculum and assessment (Hyland, 1999). The Reports of the Council of Education, 1954 and 1962 The Council of Education was set up by Minister Richard Mulcahy in April 1950. It sat for over a decade between 1950 and 1962. It published two major reports – one on the primary school curriculum (1954) and one on the curriculum of the secondary school (1962). Both reports were informed by Catholic philosophy and Catholic social teaching and emphasised the religious purpose of education. The report on the primary curriculum stated that ‘the school exists to assist and supplement the work of parents in the rearing of their children;’ that ‘(the parents’) first duty is to train their children in the fear and love of God’ and that ‘that duty becomes the first purpose of the primary school’. While in some respects the report was conservative, it raised a number of issues relating to the curriculum of the primary school and recommended that the curriculum be broadened and that greater flexibility be given to schools in the implementation of the curriculum (Department of Education, 1954). The report on the secondary-school curriculum, published in 1962, ‘approved generally of the existing regulations which provide the framework for the Junior and Senior Cycle curricula’. The report stated that the ‘ultimate purpose of secondary schools in Ireland is to prepare their pupils to be God-fearing and responsible citizens’ and that ‘liberal or general education (i.e. an all-round — 23 —
Towards a Better Future: A Review of the Irish School System formation of the faculties) is the immediate object of the secondary school’. The Council considered that ‘a well-balanced course of general education is one having humanist and other subjects as its basic core, the balance being in favour of the humanist group’. In general, the tone of the report of the Council of Education was uncritical and self-satisfied and suggested that there was no great need to reform the curriculum at either junior or Senior Cycle. At a time when free second-level education had become the norm in other European countries, the report dismissed the suggestion that such a reform be implemented in Ireland, describing free secondary education for all as ‘utopian’. “ At a time when free second-level education had become the norm in other European countries, the report dismissed the suggestion that such a reform be implemented in Ireland, describing free secondary education for all as ‘utopian’. ” Remarkably, the Council refuted any suggestions that there was a lack of co-ordination between the curriculum of the primary and secondary schools stating that ‘we cannot admit that (this allegation) has any substance ...’ (Department of Education, 1962). Investment in Education Report, 1965 Within a very short period, however, the findings of the report of the Council of Education were challenged by the Investment in Education report (Department of Education, 1965). The report raised questions about the functionality of the education received by some pupils at primary level, and highlighted the limited nature of the curriculum of Irish secondary schools which it referred to as a ‘classical grammar-school type’. It showed the relatively low number of students (especially girls) taking science subjects and the low number of boys taking modern languages. In the context of a country that was hoping to develop its international industrial and business focus, the findings of the Investment in Education report indicated that curriculum reform would have to be a priority. The numbers of pupils in second-level education increased significantly following the introduction of free second-level education in 1967 – within less than ten years second-level enrolment in Ireland had increased from 148,000 in 1966/7 to 239,000 in 1974 (Coolahan, 1981, p.195). While some individual syllabi were reformed in the 1970s, some vocational schools began to offer the Intermediate, and Leaving Certificate programmes after the introduction of free education, it was not until the 1980s, that a fundamental review of second-level curriculum was undertaken. The New Primary School Curriculum, 1971 The new primary school curriculum of 1971 was drafted by a committee of inspectors in the late 1960s and revised syllabi for individual subjects were piloted in various schools throughout the — 24 —
Page 1 and 2: Towards a BETTER FUTURE A Review of
Page 3 and 4: Published in Ireland by IPPN (the I
Page 5 and 6: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 37: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 89 and 90:
Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
show all

Towards a Better Future

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?