Since I dipped my toe into the world of curriculum reform with the new Junior Cycle here in the Republic of Ireland, I have been interested in the various reactions the process has received.
These have ranged from the hugely positive to total negativity.
I have personally experienced both reactions and the process in general has seen varied responses in the media.
Morris and Adamson (2010) in their work Curriculum, Schooling and Society in Hong Kong describe the process of reform as messy since it is trying to meet a wide range of economical, political and social goals (p45).
I concur with them on that. But could it be any other way? Teaching and learning often is messy. We try to uniformly blend classrooms and schools but things rarely work out like that.
One issue that bonds us tightly in Ireland are the state examinations.
If there is to be true Junior Cycle change, the exam in its current leaving-certificate-lite format must change (Leaving certificate = final High-school examination).
With change in the systems of assessment, will come the space for a variety of teaching and learning experiences, that if deployed attentively will bring all students forward.
It is important however that these assessments be clear and well defined. There was an interesting tweet recently about this point.
Great point about the importance of kids having a tangible “finish ” line, often don’t know what it’s like to compete anything.#educon
— Jason Markey (@jmarkeyAP) January 25, 2013
I am sure the debate on assessment will take center stage once the revised syllabus for the teaching of English in the Junior Cycle is published. I sincerely hope it is not a debate in reductionism but a debate about how we can raise teaching and learning of a subject central to our lived experience.
Photo credit: The Wall Street Journal.
January 31, 2013 at 23:49
Where to begin!…There were major problems with the process of change but if that was the only issue, then there would be little to worry about. Much more significant is the actual change itself; in this context I mean not that there will be change but that what is proposed (or, for the conspiratorial, already decided-they’ve been planning this since 1999) is so woefully devoid of an educational rationale that one really has to question what the hell is going on. Even the NCCA were, apparently, taken by surprise by the DES solo run in October 2012.
That said, wrt assessment, the problem is the dithering on the final ‘thing’ at the end of Year 3. It began as the same exam but with just 8 subjects; this represented a total u-turn on the reported reasons for ‘reform’ in the first instance. Then it changed to the the SEC setting exams only for the first year with schools setting SEC-vetted exams the following years. Now apparently every school will issue its own certificate and the SEC will ahve no role at all.
This is nuts. I know my ICT course will be much better than yours (!) but your kids and mine will have the same ‘qualification’..!!! Nuts.
They should just drop the pretence of exams and free kids to focus on learning. Or just stick to the traditional exams. But sitting on the assessment fence is still sitting on the fence.
Finally, with regard to reductionism, this is built into the new Junior Cycle. It’s not a question of whether there will be a debate; there won’t; it doesn’t matter because those who are determining all this haven’t been in a classroom teaching for a very long time and frankly, as far as I can see, are only doing a job and don’t care.
The focus will be on teaching and learning, not with the goal, per se, of improving student outcomes (see assessment above) but with the goal of assessing teachers and with the added benefit of collecting material for someone-elses research.
And it’s really made me grumpy to boot!! : )