Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science debate -
Tuesday, 5 Nov 2024

The committee convenes to have a discussion on the draft curriculum specifications at primary level. On behalf of the committee, I welcome from the Department of Education Mr. Dalton Tattan, assistant secretary, Ms Evelyn O'Connor, principal officer, and Dr. Noreen Fiorentini, principal divisional inspector; and from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, Ms Arlene Forster, CEO, Dr. Patrick Sullivan, deputy CEO, and Dr. Derek Grant, director of the NCCA. The officials are here to brief the committee on the update of the draft curriculum specifications at primary level.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite Mr. Tattan and Ms Forster to make their opening statements and this will be followed by questions from members of the committee. Given the time constraints and the fact we have two sessions, each member has a five-minute slot to ask questions and for the officials to respond. As the witness will probably be aware, the committee will publish the opening statements on its website following the meeting.

Before I begin, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

The witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. With those formalities dispensed of, I ask Mr. Tattan to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chairperson and members of the joint Oireachtas committee for inviting the Department of Education to take part in this discussion on the draft curriculum specifications for primary education.

I am the assistant secretary general with responsibility for curriculum, assessment, teacher professional learning and early years. Representing the Department of Education, I am joined here by my colleagues, Ms Evelyn O’Connor, principal officer in curriculum and assessment policy unit, and Dr. Noreen Fiorentini, primary divisional inspector.

Across our 3,089 schools, we are supported by over 42,000 dedicated teachers and school leaders who work tirelessly to shape the future of more than 550,000 pupils. Behind our pupils stand over 1 million parents and guardians and a community, all playing a vital role in our shared commitment to education and the success of our young people.

Primary school education builds on and further develops children's early learning experiences at home and in early learning and care settings. These years at primary school are crucial for shaping children's academic achievements, as well as their social, emotional and cognitive growth. Children learn to collaborate, solve problems and face challenges with confidence, which nurtures their sense of discovery and enthusiasm for learning.

The primary curriculum is being redeveloped for the first time since 1999. Significant milestones so far include the publication of the Primary Language Curriculum in 2019, the Primary Curriculum Framework in March 2023, and the Primary Mathematics Curriculum in September 2023.

The Primary Curriculum Framework serves as the overarching document, guiding this transformation and ensuring a cohesive approach to learning, teaching and assessment across all curriculum areas. Five new curriculum specifications will be published in the 2025-2026 school year. These updated specifications are designed to better meet the needs of today’s pupils, promoting deeper engagement and understanding. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, will provide further details on these specifications in its opening statement.

The redeveloped primary curriculum is closely aligned with key Department of Education policies and strategies, creating a unified approach to improving education for our primary pupils. Strategies such as the national literacy, numeracy and digital literacy strategy, well-being policy, and the STEM education policy statement work alongside the curriculum to enhance learning and teaching, promote pupil well-being, and develop key skills such as critical thinking, creativity and problem solving. This alignment ensures our education system continues to evolve, providing a future-focused experience for all primary pupils.

The Department acknowledges the need for ongoing support to help schools implement the redeveloped primary curriculum. To assist teachers and school leaders in adapting to these changes, the Department will provide sustained professional learning through Oide and the National Council for Special Education. Additionally, online resources will offer practical guidance and materials for teachers and school leaders. Funding will be provided to purchase physical resources needed to support the redeveloped curriculum. Modern foreign languages will be introduced into the curriculum for the first time. The Department is working together with its support services to put in place robust supports to ensure teachers have the skills and confidence to teach this new subject area. The Department recognises the ongoing challenges related to teacher supply. To address these issues, the Department is actively working on strategies to attract and retain qualified teachers, ensuring there are enough skilled professionals to effectively deliver the curriculum and meet the diverse needs of all pupils.

I emphasise the critical importance of the redevelopment of the primary curriculum. This not only reflects our commitment to providing a high-quality education for all pupils but also responds to the evolving needs of our society. By focusing on engagement, creativity and practical skills, we are preparing our young learners for the future. We understand that the successful implementation of this curriculum relies on the dedication of our teachers and school leaders, alongside the support and collaboration of parents and communities. Together, we can create an enriching educational environment that nurtures a sense of wonder and a lifelong passion for learning. My colleagues and I are very happy to answer any questions committee members may have.

I thank the Chair and committee members for the opportunity for the NCCA to appear before them today to speak on the topic of the draft primary curriculum specifications. I am the chief executive of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. I am joined by Dr. Patrick Sullivan, deputy CEO with responsibility for early childhood and primary education, and Dr. Derek Grant, director of curriculum and assessment.

The NCCA council includes 26 members appointed by the Minister for Education. Its remit is to give advice to the Minister on the curriculum for early childhood education, primary and post-primary schools, and the assessment procedures employed in schools and examinations on subjects which are part of the curriculum. In carrying out this remit, the council is currently overseeing the review and redevelopment of the full primary school curriculum. This work builds on the many strengths of the current curriculum introduced 25 years ago in 1999, while also addressing the needs of children in our primary and special schools today and into the future. This work has been advanced through working closely with children, teachers, parents and school leaders, through extensive public consultation, research evidence, good practices, international experience and ongoing deliberation by the council and its representative structures. Key features of the work include the commissioning of the children’s school lives longitudinal study, which tracks the experience of 4,000 children across primary and special schools. Another key feature is the sustained collaboration with schools through the schools forum and ongoing consultation with children.

A significant milestone was reached in March 2023 with the publication of the primary curriculum framework for primary and special schools. The first of its type for primary education in Ireland, the framework sets the vision, principles and priorities for children’s learning as we move further into the 21st century. Some of the features of the framework include that it is for all primary and special schools. It introduces a set of key competencies, which are priorities for children’s learning across all curriculum areas and subjects.

The framework sets out the curriculum areas and the subjects of the curriculum. It introduces and expands on aspects of learning, including: STEM education; modern foreign languages from third to sixth class; technology; learning about religions, beliefs and worldviews; and a broader approach to arts education. It also gives an increased emphasis to existing areas such as physical education, social, personal and health education and digital learning, and provides for greater agency and flexibility for teachers and children. Importantly, the framework also links with learning experiences provided through Aistear, the early childhood curriculum framework, and connects with learning in the framework for the junior cycle.

The primary language curriculum, Curclam Teanga na Bunscoile, with the primary mathematics curriculum, are the first two specifications of the redeveloped curriculum to be introduced to primary and special schools. Furthering the redevelopment of the curriculum, the remaining suite of draft primary curriculum specifications were published in March of this year and were subject to extensive consultation until June. The findings of this consultation will be discussed by the council at its November meeting this week, with the report published in the coming weeks.

As for the next steps for the NCCA, in the coming months we will complete the redevelopment of all five primary curriculum specifications. The council is expected to issue its advice to the Minister for Education in spring 2025, and throughout this work the council will continue to be cognisant of the various strategies, action plans, reports and policies that are relevant to primary education and the curriculum in particular.

My colleagues and I will be very happy to answer any questions members may have.

My first question relates to the level of Irish language that students have when they come out of what we might call English-language schools. There needs to be a strong focus on the Irish language in the curriculum, but I understand there is going to be a reduction in the time spent on the Irish language of 30 minutes per week. Is that correct?

I might come in there. In 2017, we were asked to look at the scheduling and structure of the primary school curriculum and this was the foundation block on which we built towards the primary curriculum framework, the red document I have to hand, which sets out the policy for primary and special schools that was agreed and published in 2023. In looking at the time across the curriculum, we consulted on a range of options for the use of time and two key findings emerged. First, teachers, school leaders and children described very hurried learning experiences in their primary schools. There was a feeling of being rushed to the end, with pupils closing their maths books, for example, and moving immediately to their Irish books. Children, in particular, spoke about needing bigger blocks of time to immerse themselves in learning, while teachers also spoke about the pressurised aspect. Teachers pointed to the erosion of what was discretionary or flexible time in the curriculum, which was being given over to different policies and strategies that had come into the primary school space over the years. That was a key priority in restoring that flexible time.

The second finding from that consultation was that children felt they did not have enough time for two key areas of the curriculum, from their perspective. One was physical education, and we know we have been an outlier among the OECD and the European Union in respect of time allocations for physical education. The other was social, personal and health education, SPHE-----

To be very clear, in English-medium schools, which the Deputy is speaking about, the time for the Irish language for stage 1 has remained unchanged, so for junior and senior infants, it is the same time. For stages 2 to 4, which is first to sixth class, there is a reduction of 30 minutes a week, so it is six minutes a day of teaching time. Some of the key pieces about this is that time-----

On that, I have a feeling that, really and truthfully, we are seeing a huge increase in the number of exemptions for the Irish language. We know people come out of 13 years of education feeling they do not have the confidence to speak in Irish outside of the school setting, and perhaps not even within that setting. At the same time, we are seeing a decrease in the amount of time we have dedicated to the Irish language. Additionally, and I take what Dr. Sullivan is saying, I am sure, although I am not a teacher, that for teachers and for the children there was an element of being rushed in all that, but then we are also bringing in another language. While that is fine - my mother is German, I speak German, and I grew up in a trilingual household; kids can do that, no problem - I do not really understand how that then makes it easier for kids and it is not as rushed. I do not understand, when Irish is a national language, why we would be reducing that.

One of the key points about the primary language curriculum, or curaclam teanga na bunscoile, which was introduced in 2019, is the use of Irish during the school day, or Gaeilge neamhformiúil, content language integrated learning, CLIL, across the curriculum in respect of Irish, and playful approaches in Irish really enriching a child's learning through Irish.

Yes, and that is a critical point. Time does not equal quality of teaching. The quality of teaching and learning in the classroom is paramount. The competence and confidence of our teachers in the Irish language, how Irish is valued within the school, within the community and within peer groups within schools are critical factors to seeing the usefulness of language. The Deputy mentioned MFL. One of the things we have noticed about international newcomers coming into our classrooms is that when other languages are in the classroom, the Irish children see the value of their own domestic language in comparison with the languages coming into the classroom, and that actually enhances the language learning in the classroom for many children.

To be honest, Dr. Sullivan has not convinced me on that point. Regarding a third language, and I think it is good for kids to learn as many languages as possible - that is the time to learn them - what standard will the teachers of that other language have? Will they have had to have done Erasmus studies in that language? Will they have studied it to a large extent at third level or how will that work?

I will respond to the Deputy on that one. The level the students will have to achieve will be a very basic one and it will only be at fifth and sixth classes that language competency will come into the curriculum. It will be language awareness at third and fourth class. We are working with Oide, our support services, and with Post-Primary Languages Ireland, and we are developing a big programme of support to support the teachers in terms of language competency to upskill them to a B1 level. We would encourage the teachers to avail of Erasmus but we will be providing upskilling opportunities for them over a number of years. It will be introduced on a phased basis.

I welcome the witnesses. To follow on from Deputy Farrell's comments, reducing the time dedicated to our national language by 30 minutes per week is appalling in today's world.

I remember, when I was in school, being put down the back of the class for Irish and being put aside in third and fourth class for different languages like Spanish or French. It sounds, from the response, like that is still the reality in our schools. From speaking to many Traveller children, I know they still, unfortunately, do not get the opportunity to learn Irish in school. My wee girl is five and she started school in September. She absolutely loves Irish. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach knows very well from being here that I have no Irish. She is trying to educate me. Children at five or six years of age are sponges. Even last week, she was saying to me, "Mammy, you don't know Irish." I tell her to go to her daddy or try my best with her. That was me being like many members of the Traveller community and people from other ethnic minority groups, as well as people with disabilities like dyslexia and dyspraxia, being denied being able to have their own language.

I know Deputy Farrell asked the question but I wonder why the Department decided to do that. How will it be beneficial to children? I know the witnesses spoke about other languages in the school. That is a divide and conquer issue, where we reduce our Irish language to accommodate another language. We are seeing that issue on our streets today. I welcome the framework that was published in March. What has been delivered under the framework since March?

Regarding the NCCA, I know my good friend, Dr. Hannagh McGinley, has done some incredible work relating to Traveller children and people from minority groups. I thank Dr. Hannagh McGinley for all her work. We have worked hard on the Traveller history and education Bill in this committee. It is unfortunate that our Government will collapse by the end of the week and that we will not have the opportunity to pass that Bill on Committee Stage. Would the NCCA still support that Bill after the establishment of a new Dáil? Would it lobby and campaign for the Bill to come back to committee? I am not saying the issue of Irish is the fault of any individual around the table. I compliment the witnesses on their work because it is difficult to work in a Department when one has little or no power. You could wallpaper this room with the policy and legislation that the witnesses have produced but there is a lack of implementation from the Government.

I have one more question about children with special additional needs. I have said numerous times at this committee that we continue to fail children with special needs in this country. As far as I know, last year, 126 children with additional needs had no school places. What can the mothers and fathers of Ireland and the Department do to make sure that every child has an opportunity to go to school? We are meant to treat every child equally but we do not treat members of the Traveller community, children from other ethnic minority groups and children with disabilities equally. Deputy Farrell spoke about reduced times, which brought to mind the reduced timetables for Traveller children and children with disabilities who are impacted by them.

I have given a few statements as well as asking a few questions. It is nothing personal. They are important questions for the Department.

I am happy to begin. To pick up on Senator Flynn's point about Gaeilge, the lovely example she shared with us about her young daughter in school also speaks to the point Dr. Sullivan made earlier that in addition to the amount one spends on a language, it is how one uses the time. It is the kinds of experiences that children have in order to have as much exposure as possible to the language and develop a love of the language which, in turn, feeds their motivation and their learning of the language.

In terms of the Traveller history and culture work, as the Senator mentioned, we worked closely with Dr. Hannagh McGinley. To fill the Senator in on what has been happening in more recent times, she will be aware of the research report that was published and that Dr. McGinley very much led the work on. Since then, we have also been working closely with schools and early childhood settings to gather real-life examples in the Irish context of how Traveller history and culture are nurtured and supported within the context of the current curriculum, because there are many opportunities in the current curriculum. The intention behind those examples which we will be publishing is as a practical support for all other teachers and schools to avail of.

A follow-on piece of work which is also connected to the Traveller history and culture report is to review and update the intercultural guidelines. These are almost 20 years old. They were developed in the context of the 1999 primary curriculum and in the context of post-primary curricula at the time. We are in the process of carrying out that review and updating work and it is our intention that that would be completed towards the end of next year. In fact, we had a tender very recently to commission some additional research to support us in that work.

On the point about special educational needs, earlier I made reference to the primary curriculum framework and all of the draft primary specifications which flow from that. We are very clear that the curriculum is for all schools and, therefore, it is all children, including those with special educational needs. One of the practical strategies that we have adopted in respect of our work, on both the framework and the draft specifications, is to work closely with a large network of schools - the schools forum. As part of that forum, there are special schools working with us. In addition to that, there are a number of support structures in place which the Department leads out on and chairs. Within those structures, we work closely with the National Council for Special Education as well. We are very conscious of building in mechanisms to ensure that the next version of the primary curriculum can really support the learning of every child in the country across primary and special schools.

I will pass to my colleagues from the Department to answer in respect of the other questions.

I will respond to a couple of additional points that Senator Flynn raised. The special education piece, an area I worked in before I moved into the curriculum space in the Department, is hugely challenging for us in terms of the major explosion, particularly in the area of autism, which is seen internationally and we are certainly seeing it in Ireland too. It really challenges us each year in terms of being able to provide enough places in the right areas in order that people are not obliged to travel long distances, which is also a key aspect.

We deliver a large number of special classes every year. The number of special classes has increased manyfold since 2011. Nearly all of those are autism classes but we still do not meet all the demand that is there. I have met parents, including in recent times, who naturally feel very aggrieved and upset about that. As they have to fight in other areas of their lives, they feel that they also have to fight in order to secure these places for their children. Our planning and building unit works closely with our special education section and with the National Council for Special Education to reduce the number of times that happens and to try and find solutions to it, but the difficulty comes with trying to always get those solutions in place for the beginning of the school year. Sometimes they come through as the school year advances. We acknowledge there is a problem there and we have to continue to redouble our efforts to try and address that.

On the reduced timetables - Dr. Fiorentini wants to say something about this as well - we have done some work on this in recent years. There can be times when a reduced school day can work when there is a clear plan in place, where it is time-limited and where the aim is to get a student who may be experiencing school refusal, school anxiety and things like that back to school over a period.

Where it does not work and is inappropriate is where it is used simply as a way to deal with what a school might see as a problem but actually is an issue the school needs to address to find ways to support that student. Sometimes they can drift on, and that is a problem where effectively a child over time can become disconnected with that school.

In response to Senator Flynn, the Department has issued a circular to schools about the appropriate use of reduced school days. As an inspector, in my role when I visit schools and I encounter children on reduced school days, I certainly query it. I certainly ask a lot of questions. I ensure they have followed the steps that are clearly laid out in the guidance. If they have not, I have to report that to the Department and to Tusla. Every child has a right to be in school and that is the viewpoint of the inspector when he or she visits the classroom. It is an issue, however, and I take it up.

I will say one more thing about the Irish. Over my 40 years in education, where I have seen Irish taught best and used best in schools is not particularly where Irish is just a subject on the curriculum but where it is a way of life, it is a living language and there is genuine use of Irish throughout the day. Schools embrace all kinds of competitions, Seachtain na Gaeilge, Coicís na Gaeilge, etc. The new primary curriculum framework allows schools to use time in a flexible way and there is an allocation of flexible time there which schools can use to promote our national language. Inspectors, under the Education Act, have a really important role in monitoring Irish in schools. We certainly have a special place in our hearts with regard to our teanga dúchais and will be watching this space carefully going forward as well. It is lovely to hear that Senator Flynn's daughter is having such a beautiful experience with Gaeilge ar scoil.

I appreciate that and so do the Traveller community and parents of children with additional needs. We are not where we want to be when it comes to reduced timetables but the Department, through the committee and with NGOs, has worked really hard in the past ten years to knuckle down on this issue. I thank the officials for their reply.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach agus gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as ucht teacht ós chomhair an choiste inniu.

I am sorry there are so few of us here but the officials probably all know why. It may mean there is time to come back for a second round of questioning. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not being rude if, in the course of asking them questions, I seek to focus the officials by interrupting.

There are a lot of parents whom I am hearing from who are concerned about what the NCCA is doing, especially around the lack of consultation around sensitive matters. I will have to draw the officials' attention to some correspondence I received from a number of parents who referred to - this will help frame the questioning - their involvement in an in-person focus group convened by the National Parents Council to discuss the draft curriculum in May 2024. Arising from their concerns, they sought a meeting with Dr. Sullivan to discuss specific issues. They are not happy that parents are being fully consulted, heard and heeded in an upfront way. They list a number of things which I find persuasive, one of which is the fact that many parents do not know the primary curriculum was being revised. A very small sample of parents attending online and in-person focus groups is not representative, they say. They point out, for example, that the Minister wrote to parents announcing the free primary book scheme and ask why the Minister did not do something similar in communications terms regarding the curriculum development process.

They also point to the fact there is no toolkit available for the well-being part of the curriculum. This is essential to inform parents and to allow them make decisions about whether they are happy with the way SPHE is being taught. They are concerned about the failure to define sexual identity, for example. No definition is provided. Does this refer to sexual orientation? I notice it is mentioned on page 32 of the primary curriculum framework. I am wondering what that is doing in there. I ask the NCCA representatives directly today what the NCCA means by sexual identity. Is the NCCA conscious and aware of the recent Cass review of the treatment of children experiencing gender distress and will that inform what happens from here on with regard to the SPHE well-being element of the curriculum?

I say all of this because a number of divisive ideologies - critical theory, including critical race theory, gender theory and queer theory - are impacting education today. It is not clear to me how a State school can seek to protect children from such ideologies based on the principles outlined in the draft curriculum. If diversity, equity and inclusion are the principles, that is potentially a charter for the teaching of any wacky ideology if there are not grounding principles that refer, for example, to the need to have an evidence base in all that is taught, an affirmation of reason of the scientific approach. None of this seems to be referred to or strongly referred to in what the council has produced to date. For example, if gender ideology proposes that gender is fluid, that undermines the educational necessity to secure young people in their sexual identity as either male or female. To do that to children would undermine a foundational stone of their overall identity and possibly contribute to the kind of sexual confusion and the problems that we all know about that are happening now. It is questionable whether there is respect for the idea of sexual innocence as being an appropriate education principle. I would like the witnesses' view on that.

To be clear, I am not talking about religious-run schools here. I am talking about education being in line with reason and scientific thought. The concern people have is that the diversity, equity and inclusion ideology is a recipe for stuff being taught to their children that is not evidence-based. When they do not even have a toolkit, they are worried. Does the council recognise the primacy of parents here, first of all? Does it recognise that what it does is subject to the wishes of parents? Does it accept fully and unequivocally that under the Education Act, it is skating on thin ice if it ignores the right of patrons to ensure that everything that is taught through the curriculum is taught having regard to the characteristic spirit of schools? In light of that, does it accept that different schools with different characteristics may take very different approaches to approaching the curriculum?

Will the witnesses define for me what they mean by sexual identity? Can they also tell me why they are using the word “equity” as opposed to the word “equality”? What difference do they see? Why is there not more about an affirmation of Irish identity and European Union identity? Why is there not more about patriotism, you know? Is that a dirty word underlying these ideas? I have run out of questions so I might have to wait until the second round.

I will allow an opportunity for a brief response. A piece of correspondence was referenced. In fairness to the witnesses, the members of the committee have had the benefit of seeing that piece of correspondence. The first question is are the witnesses aware of that correspondence and have they had the opportunity to-----

----- in respect to that. Large efforts were made in awareness-raising and communication around the entire consultation. That is borne out in the number of responses we had to the consultation - over 3,500, many of which were from parents. We had the National Parents Council focus group, to which the Senator referred, in the Ashling Hotel at that time. There were a number of parents raising concerns. I met them after the meeting and also at a follow-up meeting. I outlined clearly to them the approaches in the curriculum, and the awareness-raising we have done to try to reach all teachers and all parents in that respect. We did information newsletters and emails to schools, and made direct attempts through local and national radio and print media outlets.

The awareness-raising with parents can be seen in the consultation numbers. The draft well-being document that was published contains the essential learning in well-being SPHE and RSE. The toolkit is something different. The toolkit is for teachers through pedagogical approaches and guidance, not in terms of content but in the “how” of the curriculum. The content of the curriculum is contained in the draft specifications. That is a very important distinction to make between the toolkit and the curriculum specification.

The Senator mentioned the reference to sexual identity on page 32 of the primary curriculum framework. It is there in the context of the Equal Status Act 2004.

It says “The framework is concerned with the best interest of every child”, and then lists the nine grounds of anti-discrimination, one of which is sexual identity. That is why that is included.

That is where a lot of people are wondering if this a case of taking an inch and stealing a yard. I do not think sexual identity - I put my head on the block here - is referred to in the equal status legislation. That is a very nebulous term. I think people are worried about the NCCA’s use of nebulous terms and where that might go and that is why people want to see the toolkit, to be frank, on stuff as sensitive as this.

The Senator asked about the primacy of parents, and of course we respect that entirely, and on the characteristic spirit of the school. There are statements in the primary curriculum framework in that regard indicating that the characteristic spirit of the school should inform all teaching and learning through the curriculum. That is not in question in any way.

The terms equity and equality are quite important, equality being the same for everybody while equity recognises that different people come from different backgrounds and there are different challenges that young people, children, meet coming to school, many of which Senator Flynn referred to, and those need to be addressed in certain ways. That equity of opportunity for all children is really important.

The Irish identity question is really interesting. It has come up in the consultation feedback. The consultation was held from March to June this year. One thing has been the commentary that Senator Mullen provided around a recognition that the curriculum look at Ireland and the local, national and then international, including the European and Ireland’s place in Europe. There is the sense of Irish identity. What makes it a curriculum for Irish children is something that came up in the consultation and we are looking at that in the feedback we have received to date.

A breadth of views have been shared through the consultation in respect of the draft specification to which Senator Mullen has referred. We are taking all that on board and that is being reworked into the finalised specifications coming in the coming months. Ms Forster might wish to add to that.

Senator Mullen might come back in, if it is suitable. I will ask my own questions now. I thank the NCCA in particular. I have had the opportunity to sit with its representatives already and discuss the draft specifications. I thank them for that opportunity. I spent 15 years up close and personal with the 1999 curriculum. I will be very sorry to see it go. I think it was an excellent curriculum. Obviously all curriculums come with a sell-by date but it has stood us in very good stead since 1999. I understand there will be considerable work required for the upskilling and professional development in the implementation of a new curriculum.

I will ask my questions one by one, if that is okay. First, on religion, are we still at two and a half hours a week under this curriculum specification? Where do we stand in that regard?

I referred to the process of reduction of time across certain curriculum areas. One has been the reduction of time for the patron's programme, which is traditionally religious education. In stage 1, which is junior and senior infants, it is one hour and 40 minutes. It was previously two hours. From first to sixth classes, where it was two and a half hours a week, it is now two hours a week.

That is still a substantial amount of time within the curriculum but it is reduced.

I wanted to circle around on some of Deputy Farrell's questions on the teaching of the Irish language and the reduction of teaching time for that. I understand the Gaelige Neamhfhoirmiúil and I was a devil for the Gaelige Neamhfhoirmiúil myself.

Are we benchmarking our progress in terms of T2 against international standards? I have a real concern. I worked as an English language teacher and TEFL teacher. I have also been a language learner in several other languages. I am a strong believer in the common European framework for reference, CEFR, for languages and how we benchmark one against the other. I see, however, a kind of a sense of exceptionalism when it comes to the teaching and learning of Irish in our school classrooms. Are we benchmarking the outcomes of our T2 specification against international standards? I ask this because there is certainly an impression out there in the wild that our children are coming out of schools with a level of Irish that is often below that of their French or German, languages which they might only have taken on in first year in school. Can I get some idea of whether that international benchmarking is happening?

I will respond first and then Dr. Sullivan might come in. In the case of benchmarking, this issue has emerged several times in our deliberations and in consultations, particularly with respect to the common European framework for reference, CEFR. In the case of curriculum development for Irish across primary and post-primary levels, we do not benchmark directly to CEFR. We describe it in terms of there being broad alignment.

In the case of the new primary language curriculum introduced in 2019 for all eight classes at primary level, one of the things different about it compared with 1999, which I think is relevant in the case of standards, is that it is an integrated curriculum for the first time. It uses a very similar structure for English and Irish. In the case of Irish, as well as English, we also have T1 and T2 specifications in place for the first time. That also allowed us to-----

I am sorry for interrupting, but I am very much aware of it and know it went through a couple of editions. The big fold-out one was the original, which did not go down terribly well. I am going to come back to my point. Are we internationally benchmarking? Are we saying that Dutch kids, for example, come out with this level of English at age 12 and Irish kids come out with this level of Irish at age 12? Do we have any hard and fast comparators that would allow me to say here are our Irish language standards and here is what we are achieving?

The answer to that question really is "No". What we do have in the system are standardised tests of Irish. Unfortunately, however, they have not been mapped onto the primary language curriculum yet, so they are a little bit out of date. They are in use in some schools. It is on the programme of work for the ERC to update them.

They are standardised tests of reading and there is also a standardised test of listening. The Department has it in the ERC work plan to update those tests in line with the revised curriculum. That will give schools an important benchmark regarding progress and children's learning. We also have work under way in the Education Research Centre, ERC, concerning early literacy and early numeracy tests in Irish and English. This will help too. The standardised tests development will be good. Some schools are still using those even though they are outdated.

I want to talk a little about science. I have a little bit of a worry about how we are aligning science with mathematics and technology. I will talk about science as three subjects. As it splits out into the leaving certificate, science becomes physics, chemistry and biology. I am concerned with where we are placing science, which is within the engineering, technology and mathematics strand. My concern is that often steers us towards the physics end of the spectrum as opposed to the biology end of it. The level of mathematics required to do anything meaningful at the physics end of the spectrum means students will not get there until fifth and sixth year. I strongly feel that if science demonstrations are being done, then science is not being taught. Science is about inquiry.

I worry that if we steer in that direction and away from the SESE approach, where we had history and geography in there too, we will lose a major opportunity, especially in terms of the biology outcome, for example, and children understanding science as a way into understanding the world around them. I do not know if that amounts to a question as such.

I thank the Chathaoirleach Gníomhach very much. He might be interested to know that when the 1999 curriculum was being developed, social and environmental education, as we are developing and conceiving it now, was actually the way it had been intended then - history and geography would go together. Science was then woven in with history and geography to become SESE. The challenge there was always that, to some extent, history and geography are natural bedfellows in the social and environmental context but the scientific aspect was always an outlier. Part of this redevelopment of the curriculum concerns the opportunity to look again at and realign social and environmental education together as history and geography, and also to align with our national STEM policy and strategy and the idea of scientific education aligning with engineering and mathematics.

The engineering aspect now coming to greater prominence in the STEM education area was always a part of the 1999 curriculum. It was the design and make piece. The engineering element now, though, is coming more to the fore in the STEM curriculum area. The nature of science, however, and of inquiry and investigation, the strand of living things, biotechnology and bioeconomy and all of that is very much embedded within what will be the redeveloped STEM curriculum area. We are holding what is true in the science area and carrying it through into the redeveloped STEM curriculum area to build on what was originally in the 1999 curriculum.

That does not dispel some of my concerns but I understand where Dr. Grant is coming from.

I have discussed another point with Dr. Sullivan previously. It concerns the place of content in the curriculum and what it is we do in the world of Google and ChatGPT. I feel strongly that ChatGPT having read the entire works of Plato does not help me to structure a moral outlook on the world. I would have said to Dr. Sullivan that the very first curriculum document I used to open when I was planning my year ahead was the history curriculum one. With that, I could at least say that, for example, this year I would be doing migrant peoples, Stone Age peoples or the Egyptians. It was the one part of the curriculum I could get my hook into and say six weeks of work would be happening on that aspect. It would then inform my art, drama and come into Gaeilge. When I look at the draft of the specifications now, it seems a little boneless. There is a real conversation to be had about what we do concerning content in a world where it is a Google search away. I worry, however, that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater because we need to know some things to build a framework. When I look at the new history curriculum, I do not quite have that sense of those content objectives. In a tangential way, perhaps, this comes back to the point made by Senator Mullen, even though I disagree with him on several things.

We would have a friction in our views, let us say. We should have a clear idea that children coming through the Irish education system will know about their Stone Age peoples. In the context of migration and the debate around migration, people in Waterford should be saying we that had Stone Age peoples here, then the Vikings founded the city, then the Normans came in and then the Huguenots arrived. If we are talking about migration today, we are talking about a historical process that has a context. I am sorry; that probably amounts more to a comment than a question and I think I have already taken up enough of the committee's time. If the witnesses wish to reply, they are welcome to do so.

I might come in first. If I understand it correctly, I think the point the Deputy is touching on is one we hear not just in the context of the primary level but one that emerges at times at post-primary level too.

It relates to the times we are living in. Previous iterations of curricula were content-heavy. Now, to help prepare young people for the world they live in and will contribute to in the future, there is more of a balance between knowledge, understanding, skills, concepts, dispositions and values. I want to clarify the curriculum specifications have plenty of knowledge and understanding captured in the broad learning outcomes, but alongside those are important skills or competencies, depending on the sector, as well as the values, attitudes and dispositions piece.

Another change that may contribute to this perception is the move away from detailed content objectives, in the case of the primary curriculum, to broad learning outcomes. That change signals less focus on the tasks children should be on involved in week to week and more on the important learning we aspire to achieve and to support young children with, whether in senior infants, second class, fourth class or any other part of the curriculum.

Those are two important contextual points related to the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach's thoughts on the history curriculum.

A lot of my contribution will be statements drawn from life experience. Following on from Senator Mullen's comments, what can the Department of Education do to stop the scaring in society that is going on? On my local radio station two weeks ago, there was a conversation about a young boy coming home with nail varnish. Billie and Lacey can put nail varnish on Liam's nails and we think nothing of it and it is okay, but there is a big conversation out there and scaring of parents. I have people close to me and aligned to my politics who say children are being educated about porn and other elements of sex education. There is no harm in educating our children about sex education and what is right and wrong. I welcome that, but there is a lot of scaring of parents and people are feeding into that. It is a bit like how thousands of people ended up in O'Connell Street on Hallowe'en because a person on the Internet said there was a parade there.

I do not give a damn who a person is, what colour a person's skin is or what a child believes in or does not believe in. It is none of my business once we do not hurt a young person based on their identity. Years ago, when a person was gay, we said they were sick: "That poor chap, he is sick" or "That poor woman, she is sick". We put it down to a psychological illness. Today, we have moved on so far that we recognise marriage equality.

We need a campaign to stop scaring people with misinformation about sex education in schools, crèches, etc. Like many other mothers on this island, I want my kids to know what is appropriate and inappropriate touch and to know about consent for young adults in school. I welcome the work the committee has done, although some members show up only the very odd time, and that is their call. Members like me who give a damn about equality in our education system welcome a child who wants to be referred to as "them" or "they" having that right and that teachers respect the children's right. As Senator Mullen said, it is not about religion anymore. That is really important.

I will offer a quick word in defence of parents. The people who put their names to this very reasonable letter - Sandra Adams, Julie Anne Collins, Mennatallah Hassan and Niamh Rushe - deserve great credit for putting together a reasoned letter in which they point to particular things that need to be addressed. Sometimes when you are watching a hurling match, the referee gives a free, places the ball 75 m or 80 m out and walks away, and then the player taking the free moves the ball forward 5 m or 6 m towards the goal and the referee comes back and says he cannot do that. That is the way many parents feel about the NCCA and what it is doing.

I return to the previous example, which I have checked since. The phrase in the Equal Status Act is "sexual orientation", not "sexual identity". What does Dr. Sullivan mean? Will he commit today to changing that? If he is talking about sexual orientation, is that necessarily a consideration when considering primary school stuff? If he is claiming to ground it in the Equal Status Act, then he should change it because when people see "sexual identity", they think the NCCA is on a mission. There is no reference to psychological, mental or phsyical health or the well-being of the person in the list of categories on page 32. That is why parents are worried. Can we have a commitment to change that? "Sexual identity" sounds like an ideologically loaded term that is meant to import stuff.

I repeat my question about whether parents can be consulted on the toolkit. It is precisely in the area of well-being that the toolkit matters because people are already worried about what is in some of the textbooks. That is not the NCCA's direct responsibility but the books only follow the lead it is giving. How many parents did the NCCA meet, online or face to face? Is there a precise number, apart from the thousands?

Is the patrons programme in the same position to influence the other five pillars as those five pillars influence each other? Given the law gives patrons the responsibility for characteristic spirit and the NCCA has to do what it does having regard to that spirit, if stuff is proposed in well-being or any other section contradicting the characteristic spirit, does the patrons programme offer the means to correct that? Are patrons entitled to ensure there is not such contradiction in any other part of the proposed syllabus in the framework?

The specification consulted on was a draft specification. We had extensive engagement with a number of participants. We have analysed all of that information and are reporting on it in the coming weeks. It will be really important to see the views from the parent group the Senator mentioned reflected in the report. We outline clearly the next steps and actions we will take to address concerns and points taken up so far in the process.

In terms of the Equal Status Act, the primary curriculum framework is policy now. A process was put in place to get to this point. It has involved a huge amount of research and two extensive consultations-----

What I am going to say is this remains policy until it is reviewed and updated on a cyclical basis.

On the number of parents and focus groups, I have before me the number of people who participated in our focus groups but it is across teachers, school leaders and parents. I do not have the exact figure for parents but I can get that to the Senator. We held parent focus groups in many traditionally marginalised communities - with the Traveller community, in centres for direct provision and in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. We did outreach to get the views of parents in that respect.

One of the points on consultation is that, like any research, you reach saturation at a certain point. Views are very broadly reflected. One thing we are eager to do in the consultation report we will publish is to reflect the views back to people that they have shared with us and outline clearly the next steps in that regard.

To pick up on the question of the toolkit-----

I would be very happy to speak to the Senator after the session. To finish up on the distinction between what the toolkit does and what the specification does, the specification is the "what" of the curriculum, that is, its content. The toolkit is the pedagogical approaches that support the teaching of the curriculum. Some of the feedback we have received suggests that more detail is needed on the learning outcomes of the well-being curriculum. As I have said, we are looking to address that in the coming months as we finalise the curriculum.

I have allowed members to come back in for an additional three minutes but I am afraid that is it. We have to move to the next session at 12.30 p.m. I thank the officials for coming here today. The briefings were very informative and beneficial. We will now suspend for a few minutes while we move to the second session. Some of our witnesses will remain.