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

We will continue on to the second part of our discussion, which is on the integration of early years learning into primary education. On behalf of the committee, I again welcome from the Department of Education: Mr. Dalton Tattan, assistant secretary; Ms Jill Fannin, principal officer; and Ms Joanne Roe, early years specialist. I also welcome witnesses from the NCCA: Ms Arlene Forster, CEO; Dr. Patrick Sullivan, deputy CEO; and Ms Donna Carolan, acting director.

The officials are here to brief the committee on the integration of early years learning into primary level. The format of the meeting is that I will invite Mr. Tattan and Ms Forster to make their opening statements. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. Given the length of today’s meeting, I ask members to stick within the five-minute time constraint for both asking questions and allowing the officials to respond. As the witnesses are aware, the committee will publish the opening statements on its website following the meeting.

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 outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Officials are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice 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 they comply with any such direction.

With the niceties dealt with, I invite Mr. Tattan to make his opening statement of this session.

I thank the Acting Chair and members of the committee for inviting the Department of Education to take part in this discussion. I am assistant secretary general with responsibility for curriculum, assessment, teacher professional learning and early years. Representing the Department of Education, I am joined by my colleagues, Jill Fannin, principal officer in teacher professional learning and early years section, and Joanne Roe, early years specialist.

First, I will provide a summary of departmental structures for early years policy. There is a long-established history of collaboration by the Department of Education with other Departments and agencies on matters relating to early years education. In 2002, we established the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education to implement objectives contained in the 1998 White Paper for early childhood education. A significant outcome was the publication in 2006 of Síolta, the national quality framework for early childhood education, which involved engagement with all stakeholders, including the Office of the Minister for Children, the forerunner of the current Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. When the centre was closed, its work continued through the early years education policy unit, EYEPU, established in 2006 as a small unit staffed by Department of Education officials and colocated in the Department of children. This unit supported both Departments in ensuring coherent policy-making in the best interests of children in the earliest years of their learning. A critical example of this is the development and publication in 2009 of Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum Framework. This seminal document began the process of bringing curriculum continuity to a previously diverse and fragmented early years sector.

In recent years, the scope and pace of discrete policy and programmes for the early learning and care sector, led by the Department of children, has accelerated, and significant expansion of public funding has driven change in how both Departments work together. The Department of children has expanded its structures for overseeing the sector.

To respond to these changes, earlier this year, the EYEPU was wound down and we moved to a new model of more integrated interdepartmental working. For the Department of Education, this involved elements of the work being integrated into individual line sections, for example, special education and social inclusion, with responsibility for overall co-ordination and education policy oversight located in my division. A new high-level interdepartmental group, co-chaired at Secretary General level, was established and met recently for the first time.

The Department of Education continues to have a clear, strong role in respect of key areas, including Aistear and associated quality initiatives such as those drawing from Síolta. Since 2016, at the commission of the Minister for children, the Department’s education inspectorate undertakes evaluations in the ELC sector, initially only in settings delivering the free preschool programme but, since 2022, as a result of First 5, the whole-of-Government strategy for babies, young children and their families, this has extended to all State-funded ELC provision from birth to six years. Almost all of the 4,000-plus ELC settings registered to deliver the State-funded preschool programme have now been inspected and composite reports and communications designed to support quality improvement have been published. Of particular and positive note is the capacity the inspectorate now has to deliver insights into children’s educational journeys from birth to 18 years-plus.

The Department of children’s responsibilities broadly encompass operational, policy and legislative matters relating to improving access for all children to high-quality, affordable ELC and school-age childcare. A key policy document underpinning this work is First 5. The Department is a key partner in realising many of the objectives of First 5 in respect of promoting positive and successful transitions across and within educational contexts. Curriculum continuity is to the fore in this regard.

Commitments in First 5 also require collaboration across other strategies with cross-departmental relevance. These include the national literacy, numeracy and digital literacy strategy, STEM, education for sustainable development, Creative Ireland and Nurturing Skills, which is the workforce plan for ELC and school-age childcare. We are also working together to devise strategies to promote early acquisition of Irish in recognition of the critical window early childhood offers for natural language learning.

With regard to the topic being discussed today, the integration of early years learning into primary education, the Department has a strong record of collaboration with the Department of children to promote successful transitions for children through the continuum of their education journey, from early learning and care to primary education and on to post-primary education. The Department recognises that successful transitions are particularly important for more vulnerable cohorts of children and have identified, with Department of children colleagues, a range of common areas of action regarding provision for children with additional needs, whether these derive from learning disability or disadvantage.

The most recent initiative to support our objective is the revision of Aistear. On behalf of the Minister for Education, the NCCA has undertaken a full review of this curriculum framework, taking account of the extensive practice and policy developments in the ELC sector since 2009. An updated Aistear framework has been approved by the Minister and the Minister for children and is being readied for publication. Notably, Aistear has been updated at the same time as primary curriculum redevelopment, affording the opportunity for alignment and integration in terms of pedagogy and learning as children move between ELC and primary school.

Primary school education builds on and furthers children's early learning experiences at home and in ELC settings. As almost all children now arrive into primary school having availed of the free programme of ELC, it is timely that the committee is considering how to optimise these early learning experiences into their primary school education. These years are crucial for shaping a child's academic achievements and 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.

I look forward to engaging with the committee. My colleagues and I will endeavour to answer any questions the committee may have.

I thank the Acting Chair and committee members for the opportunity to speak on the topic of the integration of early years learning into primary education. I am the chief executive of the NCCA. I am accompanied by Dr. Patrick Sullivan, deputy CEO with responsibility for early childhood and primary education, and Donna Carolan, acting director for curriculum and assessment.

The council includes 26 members appointed by the Minister for Education. The remit of the council is to advise 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 that are part of the curriculum. This remit enables the council to consider the coherence, continuity and progression of children’s learning from birth, through childhood and into early adulthood. In doing so, the council pays attention to alignment within and across sectors to support continuity and progression in a child’s educational journey while also respecting the distinct nature and identity of each stage and sector.

In May 2021, NCCA began a process to review and update Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum Framework. The framework, originally published in 2009, guides the development of an emergent, child-led curriculum in which play and relationships are foundational. Recognising significant changes in early childhood provision in Ireland since 2009 which encompass national developments, policies, strategies, curriculum and assessment advancements, and children's lived experiences and within society more generally, the council embarked on updating the framework. The aim of the update has been to ensure that the framework continues to support high-quality learning and development experiences for babies, toddlers and young children in Ireland in the years ahead.

The work was advanced over two phases from May 2021 to June 2024 through: gathering the views of babies, toddlers and young children, early years educators and parents; involving two wider public consultations; commissioning research; and ongoing deliberation by the council, boards and development groups. As the updating of Aistear has advanced, so too has the redevelopment of the primary school curriculum, and this presented an opportunity to strengthen alignment between the two sectors. This has been realised with the publication of the Primary Curriculum Framework in March 2023, the subsequent development of draft specifications for the redeveloped primary school curriculum and the finalisation of the updated Aistear framework this year.

Alignment between the two frameworks is particularly reflected in the vision, principles and pedagogy described in both.

Within the updated Aistear framework, there is a renewed emphasis on the rights of babies, toddlers and young children, respecting them as agentic, competent and confident individuals. This vision for children is built upon in the primary curriculum framework which aims to provide a strong foundation for every child to thrive and flourish, to support them in realising their full potential, and to view children as unique, competent and caring individuals. The two frameworks are also aligned in the articulation of the principles underpinning both of them, with strong connections in relation to how they describe partnerships with families and communities; relationships and interactions between adults and children, and children and their peers; indoor and outdoor learning environments; transitions across the routines of the day and from the home to preschool through primary and on to post-primary education; and the inclusion of all children by respecting and celebrating diversity. Alignment between the two frameworks is further strengthened with a focus on a pedagogy of play and playful learning experiences. As the redevelopment of the primary school curriculum continues, further opportunities exist to support successful transitions and coherent educational experiences for all children. My colleagues and I are happy to answer questions.

I will start with something very positive. The changes for children in early education are welcomed by many parents. I know it is not enough for many parents - I get that - but it is a great starting point for the work of the children's committee, this committee, and others - mostly women - who are very passionate about childcare and early education in general. I know the grants for parents are really welcome. My little girl, Lacey, is in the local early years education service in Ardara. She has come on in leaps and bounds. She is three years old. She has not been diagnosed with any special additional needs but the staff get her. I have said to them that she does not like loud sounds and that she questions a lot. The development work that these early educators do with our children is absolutely incredible. As a society, we have come a long way through the work of the Department and other people as well. The homework clubs, which I did not hear the witnesses talk about, are really important. These supports are provided to children who are in primary school. I have a little girl in the homework club. It is an after-school service. She always gives out to me and says, "Mammy, it is not a homework club, it is after-school." She gets a hot a meal and Lacey gets a hot meal in the early education service as well.

Space is still a big problem and that is what I want to touch on. What happens to children who cannot get spaces in early education services? We know that Traveller children do not take up early education. How can we court Traveller parents to take up early education opportunities for our children?

I would like to make another point about early education, based on my own experience. If another two children's services were opened in Ardara, County Donegal, they would be packed to capacity. It is unfortunate that there is not a place for every child. We should make it mandatory that children are entitled to free early education. In light of the importance of early education, this should be a given within the country. I welcome that we are moving towards this model as a country and I welcome the supports in place for parents. Not enough children are getting spaces.

We are leaving children with additional special needs out when it comes to early education.

There is a big gap in primary school, but there is an even bigger gap and fewer people when it comes to supporting children with additional needs. How can we tackle that?

I am conscious that some of the points raised by Senator Flynn would probably be most appropriately answered by colleagues from the Department of children, but I will reflect on some of what she said.

We spoke earlier about spaces in special education and the fact that in rapidly developing areas, the State sometimes just does not keep pace with the level of demand. There has been a major State investment in this area in recent years. The fact that the uptake rate in respect of the free preschool year is in excess of 96% - this is not to take away from the point the Senator makes - is of major benefit. The latter can been seen in the context of the children who are then arriving into primary school. Our colleagues from the NCCA may want to say something about that. In terms of crafting a new set of specifications for the primary curriculum, recognising the fact children are getting the benefit of that is also important.

On inclusion, there is the access and inclusion model, which was developed over the past seven or eight years, on the early years side of things. That involves a graduated model and is needs based.

This is something culturally appropriate. The Donegal Travellers Project has the parents and children workbooks and designed trailers and little wagons made from timber. When I went to the organisation, it gave me a few bags of cultural stories for children. I gave them to the local crèche, which was delighted with them. All that is needed is something simple as. Children are always playing with houses, and these children now have little wooden trailers. It is a step forward. I brought material from the Donegal Travellers Project to the crèche in Ardara.

Not to take away from the positives, but our early education services are understaffed. People are not taking up roles because the money is not great. Could Mr. Dalton touch on some of that? I am sorry.

Not at all. I was going to talk about how the Department for children has introduced the Equal Start programme. This is a relatively recent endeavour but something not completely different from the DEIS programme that operates at school level where, again, supports are provided to those who are at greatest risk of disadvantage. In terms of the evolution of the early years sector, it is in a very different space, whereas the primary and post-primary school systems have been around for such a long time. There is still a journey to travel in that regard. We work very closely with our colleagues in the Department with responsibility for children and we are keen to try to build as many connections as possible in respect of the curriculum and it lots of other ways too.

I will begin where Senator Flynn left off in the context of nutrition. In recent years, the World Health Organization has emphasised that the first three years of life, from conception to the age of three, is the critical time. Is there more that can or needs to be done in respect of nutrition? We cannot really separate what is taught from the context in which people learn. The question of nutrition is a very important one.

While the witnesses are here, I need to put something on the record with regard to the previous issue, particularly as it connects with this one in terms of the concerns people have. Does the NCCA see itself as having a responsibility to ensure gender ideology and any notions that gender is fluid or something merely assigned at birth is not in any way part of the early years curriculum?

The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach did not let me finish my sentence. I am asking about the efforts being made by the Department and the NCCA to ensure that gender ideology is not part of the early years curriculum.

This all speaks to the question of the trust parents place in the State and how it seeks to treat children when they are in any way entrusted to third parties. I stress how important it is that the State regulates in many areas. I have just mentioned nutrition. There are many areas where the State needs to support parents and this is a vital area of endeavour. However, with regard to values and the potential for confusion, there is a well-founded fear that modern gender ideology undermines a sense of self, which can lead to gender confusion issues arising as children grow up. Proper education requires helping to secure a child's sexual identity in line with his or her sex. To call that into doubt is destructive. For example, the need to distinguish between a child's sense of play and the real world is distorted when someone seeks to make gender identity ideas somehow real to a child. This involves the question of whether children's lives are being experimented with in some way. People do not want to see this happening. That is why I am zooming in on these issues today. Consultation with parents is never as important as it is in this area. Does Dr. Sullivan have a view and will the NCCA vet these early years curricula to make sure there is no such interference? Is he in favour of interpreting diversity, equity and inclusion in such a way as to put all of this stuff on the table? That is what people want to know.

I have the unpleasant duty of pointing out to Dr. Sullivan that it has been drawn to my attention that the issue I raised earlier about the confusion between sexual identity and sexual orientation was drawn to his attention during the consultation stage.

Yes but something has been brought to my attention and I want to make it clear and give everybody a fair chance here today. On that issue of sexual identity not being included in the equal status legislation, were definitions sought? Why did the NCCA persist with putting sexual identity in? Why did Dr. Sullivan tell us here today that sexual identity was rooted in the Equal Status Act if he knew it was not?

This document has been through a very extensive consultation process. It is based on research, work with schools, consultation and deliberation through our representative structures, council development groups and our board for early childhood and primary education. Every statement within it is stood over by the 26 nominated council representatives on whose behalf we work.

If I may share time, I might pass to my colleague on that issue. All of the evidence from reports both national and international suggests that early investment in those first few early years is critical. Investing in those first few years has a lifelong potentially positive impact on children. On the specific matter of nutrition, Ms Roe may wish to say something.

There are a couple of practical resources. There is guidance within the preschool regulations. There are things as practical as menu ideas, recipes and things like that. Settings should be following those guidelines. Tusla inspects them against those guidelines. Those inspections comprise inspection by a preschool inspector and an environmental health officer.

They would look at that. Partnership with parents is obviously important through all aspects of education but particularly in those early years. There would be engagement regarding nutrition policies and the expectations of the setting before the child, whether a baby or a preschool-age child, even comes into that setting. Settings work with parents on that.

I will ask a few questions of my own. The Aistear programme is excellent. I have not had sight of the reformulated version, but it has been transformative for early years education. However, we find ourselves in a peculiar situation whereby, through the ECCE programme, we are starting formal education through what is essentially a privatised setting. While it is funded by the State, much of the provision occurs in childcare settings. Many of these settings provide for younger children and provide after-school care. Is this an ideal situation? We are essentially providing State-led education. Notwithstanding what has been said about inspections and without intending to cast any aspersions on the quality of care we see in childcare settings, which is excellent, I wonder if we are confusing two things. I know excellent education work is done in childcare settings outside of the ECCE programme. However, are we in danger of falling between two stools? We have essentially extended State education into childcare. Even Mr. Tattan said that I should speak to his colleagues in the Department of children about this. Does the current model create confusion? Is this a destination or is it a point on the journey? If it is a point on the journey, where exactly do we want to get to?

There were a few questions there. As an official, I cannot comment on whether we are doing the right thing or if it is the appropriate thing to do. As I was saying just a couple of minutes ago, early years education is at an early stage in its evolution. I do not believe that the journey will ever be complete in either the schools system or the early years system. We are always seeking to improve. During the discussion with committee members in the earlier session, we heard about some of the challenges the schools system faces. As officials, it is incumbent on us to work very closely together, particularly where Government makes a decision as to where early years education and the schools system sit in the structure. It is up to us to ensure that those structures do not stop us achieving the joint outcomes we want to see. As I have said, we work very closely with our colleagues in the Department of children across a range of areas, including the early years area we are talking about now. It is not just that area, however. We work across a whole range of other areas including social inclusion, special education and so on. We will continue to do that. As stated, we want to work together. The recent establishment of the structure at Secretary General level is further evidence of that. In a way, the decision to disband that co-located unit earlier this year is evidence of the integrated way in which we are working. It meant that something like that was past its sell-by date.

I will ask a question about literacy and its place in early education. I read some research years ago. When citing research, I should have the citation to hand but, unfortunately, I do not. This research suggested that, whether you start literacy work at four or at seven, the outcomes are broadly the same by the time the child is 12. If I am right on this, and I am sure I will be corrected if I am not, it is madness to spend time on literacy between the ages of four and seven if the outcomes are going to be the same when the children reach 12. I would like to see the focus on gross and fine motor skills, that is, cutting things out, pasting, active play, access to the outdoors, forest schooling and all of those things. Have we gone far enough in interrogating the place of literacy and pre-literacy, particularly in early learning settings?

We have actually done considerable work in this space. In the opening statement, I mentioned that we have been reviewing and updating Aistear at the same time as redeveloping the primary curriculum. I also mentioned the new primary language curriculum that is in place.

I am going to pass to Ms Carolan, who can give the committee some examples from the updated framework itself, with an eye to the new primary language curriculum and how the two connect.

There was a reference just now to the importance of the outdoors. With Aistear, there is a specific and intentional focus on learning in the outdoors through the addition of a new aim in the theme of exploring and thinking. It talks about meaningful time outdoors. There are so many playful opportunities for children to engage in when they are outdoors. As with the original framework, the learning goals explain the dispositions, attitudes, values and skills that babies, toddlers and young children can develop. The principle of play builds on this, too, and promotes the blend of free play, guided play and educator-led playful experiences. This is also evidenced in the primary language curriculum through the idea of infusing playfulness through learning experiences. Again we see that language used in the primary maths curriculum, where we have reference to infusing playfulness. This idea of children having plenty of playful and engaging experiences is built on from early years through to primary. It is an important feature. The emphasis being placed on outdoors encourages educators to see the potential in the outdoor environment in terms of connecting with nature, getting to know their community, fostering a sense of belonging and who they are and their role in terms of connecting, caring for themselves, caring for others and caring for the environment.

Yes, but no censorship, a Chathaoirligh Gníomhach. I have been following the discussion and am delighted to hear the emphasis on the outdoors. I have one question. Is it fake news or is it true that at one point there was an NCCA committee that had all women and no man on it in the context of curriculum development?

A Chathaoirligh, I can respond. There was a development group. It was the junior cycle SPHE development group which completed its work in the early part of last year. There a couple of points that are really important here in responding to the Senator. The development groups are representative structures. The vast majority of members of all the curriculum and assessment development groups in NCCA are actually nominated by the partners in education. The NCCA executive, the council, has no role in that membership. Those members come forward from the nominating bodies. In addition, then, in the case of each development group, there are approximately two members who come through what we call a public co-option process whereby we essentially put out a call, an invitation for expressions of interest. They come through and then between two and four members of development groups come through that process. In the case of that process, what we are seeking is to add additional expertise to the development group. Again, it depends on the subject or curriculum area the development group is working on. Those are the two ways in which the membership of each development group is decided. In the case of the junior cycle SPHE development group, it so happened that the members were female.

Certainly when we contact the nominating bodies, we emphasise the importance of diversity in terms of the work of the group. We encourage that to be considered when organisations are putting forward their nominations. Most organisations are nominating one person. We have a small number that are nominating more than one. We really try to encourage that diversity but the choice of the members is largely down to that nomination process.

You would not get a European Commission through no matter who and what different countries were nominating them. I would just ask that it be addressed. There is an issue that I want to go out strongly here today. I am sorry that I have to ask hard questions here today but this is what we are here to do, to hold good people like you to account.

Absolutely. Can I finish my response, Senator, on the membership of the development groups? I think it is really important to bear in mind that each development group plays a very key role but they are not the only structure involved in the development of a specification.

Every specification, including the junior cycle SPHE specification, is also reviewed and discussed at length by a particular board within the NCCA. The boards have mixed gender and their composition is on our website, and it is the same for the council.

There is another important piece. The development group works with several sources of information, knowledge and expertise. Research is one and there is also input from consultation, and we have spoken several times this morning about consultation. The development groups also bring their experience and expertise to bear, and we work very closely with schools and early childhood settings, depending on whatever part of the curriculum we are working with. All of that contributes to the development of a specification. That is a very important piece in responding to the Senator’s question about the membership of a very particular structure.

I think the NCCA is falling down by not being seen to consult widely with parents. If Ms Forster cannot tell me today, for example, how many parents the NCCA has met face-to-face or online, it suggests that parents are not really being respected as the primary educators. I hope I am back after the next election but neither Deputy Ó Cathasaigh nor I can take that for granted. However, it is important that we would have the NCCA before the committee to talk about the second level curriculum as well. I am very grateful to the witnesses for coming in today but I have to say there are serious questions about aspects of the NCCA’s stewardship. There is sometimes a discordant voice but many people are concerned that, to put it bluntly, NGOs have more access than parents to what is being shaped for the nation's children. This is something the NCCA needs to think about while the Dáil and Seanad are being re-elected.

We are very happy to come back to the committee. I want to state for the record that parents are a key education partner in the development of curriculum within the NCCA. That takes place in a number of ways. Parents are on our structures, there are parent nominees on our council and I mentioned the boards and development groups. We engage with parents through consultation. I do not have time to go through it today but even in the case of the draft primary curriculum specifications, we have a long list of engagements and strategies that we use to try to build awareness of the consultation and encourage people, including parents, into that consultation. We are very happy to share that information with the committee and we will share the figures as well. We just do not have them to hand, as Dr. Sullivan said.