Submissions regarding the draft plan

This section investigates three submissions based on the draft plan: those by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO), and the Teaching Council. These are chosen because they are influential stakeholders in primary education and have played an historic role in the development and implementation of policy in Ireland. Representatives of these agencies and organisations are also interviewed as part of this doctoral study (see Chapter 7). This current investigation focuses on these three submissions’ views on the role of assessment in the draft strategy. The NCCA, INTO and Teaching Council all welcome the strategy and its timeline for consultation. The NCCA welcome “the spirit in which the plan invites dialogue and discussion so that its strategies can be refined and developed more fully” (2010, p.6). However, it is noteworthy that, as the state’s agency for curricular and assessment development, the NCCA was not consulted when the draft strategy was being developed. The NCCA, INTO and Teaching Council raise a number of points to be developed within the strategy. This dissertation examines three of them relating to

163 assessment: 1) definition of terms, 2) the drive to raise standards, and 3) the approach to assessment within the strategy.

6.3.2.1 Definition of terms

The NCCA identifies areas in need of further clarification as follows:  “definition of terms

 discourse about learning

 the capacity of testing to promote and sustain reform

 assumptions about progress and change, especially the impact of pre-service education and continuing professional development (CPD)

 the role of schools and teachers in the ambition for continuous improvement  systemic issues relating to the plan’s overall strategy” (2010, p.7).

It argues that definition of terms is important as “their significance resides not only in the terminology that is explicitly defined but also in the assumptions implicit in language used to talk about curriculum, assessment, and how educational change happens” (NCCA, 2010, p.9). The INTO also asserts that the draft strategy does not explain the theory of learning on which it is based. It states that it is “concerned that the overall thrust of the draft plan represents a simplistic and technical view of education rather than recognising that education is a complex non-linear process” (2011, p.2). It also argues that the draft plan does not sufficiently recognise the socio-cultural context in which learning takes place. The Teaching Council does not express concerns about the theories underpinning the draft plan. It does, however, caution against the increased allocation of time for literacy and numeracy at the expense of other curricular areas (2010, p.4). The INTO states that “There appears to be an assumption in the draft plan that an increase in assessment and testing will

164 lead to improvements in children’s achievement in literacy and mathematics” (p.2011, p.3). The next section explores this further.

6.3.2.2 The drive to raise standards

The NCCA, INTO and Teaching Council do not believe that increased testing will lead to a rise in literacy and numeracy standards. Both the INTO and Teaching Council urge the DES to learn from the lessons of the educational systems in the UK and the USA, and not to create an emphasis on testing or league tables. The INTO also argues that continuous testing takes time away from teaching, leads to teaching to the test, and takes time away from student learning (2011). The Teaching Council argues that “providing extra time for literacy and numeracy will not achieve the desired outcomes unless it is accompanied by a change in the way the time is used” and it calls for further research in this area (2010, p.12). The NCCA comments that “a relentless focus on literacy and numeracy must be balanced with a concern for children’s learning more generally” (2010, p.47). The Teaching Council cautions against putting too much weight on the value of assessment of learner outcomes. It contends that “there is a danger that greater emphasis on assessment of learning outcomes may lead to a rigidity of curriculum” (2010, p.15).

6.3.2.3 Approach to assessment in the strategy

The INTO opposes the proposal to include an extra point of mandated testing in the primary school cycle, arguing that the current system is proficient. The INTO also states a concern that the information tabulated for Schools Like Ours could lead

165 to the creation of league tables. It states that “The purpose of assessment at school level is to inform the teaching and learning process. Any other use of assessment distorts the process of assessment and leads to high stakes testing which has a negative impact on teaching and learning” (2011, p.11). The NCCA avers that the draft plan confers little agency on the learner. It states that “The voices of learners are, in fact, conspicuously and somewhat ironically absent from the document” (2010, p.14). It notes the absence of the learner in the section on assessment: “The overarching emphasis of the tabulated actions is on processes of assessment of learner achievement through standardised tests and the use of evidence from those tests to report to others, to self-evaluate for schools, and to plan for improvement both of the school and of learner instruction” (2010, p.37). The NCCA also calls for reflection on whether putting a programme of evidence-gathering in place will bring about the required level of change to the way in which assessment evidence is used to support learning. It also argues that it is important “to reflect too on whether the kinds of evidence gathered are sympathetic with the aims of the curriculum, whether the data gathered will be used wisely and effectively, and whether gathering the data from tests will not simply become an end in itself” (2010, p.38). The next section explores the finalised literacy and numeracy strategy.