Sir, – In her exemplary piece on the suggested “outcomes-only” framework for curriculum design in the upcoming Senior Cycle sciences, Breda O’Brien eloquently draws attention to the significant challenges science educators and their pupils are encountering (“Anticipated Leaving Cert renovation may harm the exams’ credibility significantly”, Editorial & Analysis, 6th April).
Educators and pupils equally merit complete transparency on the content and depth of the subject matter to be taught and mastered. Regrettably, the recently unveiled model curriculums for Senior Cycle Biology, Chemistry, and Physics fall alarmingly short of this standard. The exclusive application of indistinct learning outcomes to describe the subject matter will breed confusion, inconsistency, and inequity. It is akin to instructing a builder to erect a building with only a basic outline, devoid of comprehensive plans or blueprints.
Evidence of complications stirred by vague and inadequately structured curriculums is not particularly elusive. The Junior Cycle science curriculum follows a similar defective pattern and is incapable of providing a suitable foundation for advanced scientific study. Similarly, an updated curriculum for agricultural science was launched half a decade ago using the identical model and has induced widespread irritation among educators in this field. Consequently, the number of pupils studying agricultural science for the Leaving Certificate is drastically falling because they also require and deserve transparency, particularly when the end-of-course examinations are fiercely competitive. This issue appears to be acknowledged by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), as they plan to introduce a new agricultural science curriculum in 2027 while retaining the defective model for other science subjects.
A further assessment component is also proposed, accounting for 40% of the final grade in Senior Cycle sciences. This proposal implies that pupils studying biology, chemistry or physics would undertake a thorough lab or field experiment and subsequently prepare a report. The grim truth, however, is that access to school laboratories and their equipment is not equal for all pupils and varies considerably among schools. Imposing this form of evaluation will only fuel the disparity in our educational system. The advent of generative AI produces an additional concern: pupils can finalise their entire project using this technology, presenting an advantage to those with access to digital devices and AI. An announcement was made by the minister, before the emergence of this technology, to introduce a 40% extra assessment component for all subjects. However, given the drastic alteration in the circumstances, retracting this proposal seems a sensible course of action.
Our educators and learners must be provided with the finest standards for each discipline, built upon global leading practices in a demanding setting. Drawing a comparison between what the NCCA offers and established learning plans in the UK or the International Baccalaureate is akin to contrasting night and day. There’s a need for improvement, with Ireland’s Senior Cycle’s prestige seriously at risk. Yours faithfully,
HUMPHREY JONES,
Chairman,
Association of Irish Science Teachers,
Dublin 16.