RESULTADOS DEL TRATAMIENTO DE RESCATE DE LA RECIDIVA BIOQUIMICA

learning and life: the national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people 2011-2020 (DES, 2011)

In his preface to the strategy, the then Minister for Education and Skills, Mr. Ruairí Quinn, TD, states that ensuring that all young people acquire literacy and

166 numeracy skills is one of the greatest contributions that we can make to achieving social justice and equity in our country” (2011, p.5). Research on the drive to increase standards from a social justice and equity perspective in other countries is reviewed in Chapter 2 (section 2.5.4). A number of researchers have found that accountability based measures, such as increased testing, has a negative impact on minority or disadvantaged groups (Klenowski, 2009; McCarty, 2009; Lee and Wong 2004). The strategy seeks to address “significant concerns about how well our young people are developing the literacy and numeracy skills that they will need to participate fully in the education system, to live satisfying and rewarding lives, and to participate as active and informed citizens in our society” (DES, 2011, p.7). It states that there were almost 480 written submissions in response to the draft plan. The strategy expressly states that representatives of business, industry and enterprise “emphasised the importance of raising standards to the levels achieved in the highest performing countries in order to continue to grow our indigenous knowledge economy and continue to attract high-value jobs through inward investment” (2011, p.8). This statement allied to the fact that there is no mention of the views of representatives of the arts or cultural organisations support Gleeson (2009) and O’Sullivan’s (2009) assertions that there is an increasingly economic rationale behind educational policy decisions. The strategy responds to the NCCA’s criticism in their submission by giving a robust definition of literacy and numeracy (2011, p.8). However, Ó Bréacháin and O’Toole highlight an area where the literacy and numeracy strategy may lead to confusion about its true purposes:

“the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy provides significant levels of ‘mixed messages’. For example, the Strategy purports to present a broad, non-utilitarian definition of ‘literacy’, embracing the notion of multiple literacies (critical literacy, digital literacy etc), rather than as a set of technical skills to be acquired. However, the

167 aims of the strategy present a somewhat different conceptualisation.

The word ‘literacy’ is quickly replaced by the word ‘reading’ and concerns shift to performance on national and international standardised tests indicating a rather narrow understanding of the term” (2013, p.403).

The strategy espouses a holistic view of education: “All learners should have an opportunity to engage in a broad, balanced and fulfilling curricular experience that supports all aspects of their development – not just the academic dimension but the social, emotional, imaginative, aesthetic, and physical dimensions as well” (DES, 2011, p.43). However, the strategy argues that literacy and numeracy are “core skills” and that “their development must be safeguarded, sometimes by delaying the introduction of some curriculum areas and always by ensuring that the teaching literacy and numeracy is integrated across the curriculum” (DES, 2011, p.44). It makes a number of references to the importance of literacy and numeracy skills to the economy, for example, the need for our children to have “world-class literacy and numeracy skills will be essential for the rebuilding of our economic prosperity and ensuring the well-being of our society” (DES, 2011, p.15). The strategy retains the draft plan’s proposal to improve outcomes at primary school by:

 Increase the percentages of primary children performing at Level 3 or higher (i.e. at the highest levels) in the National Assessment of Mathematics and English Reading by at least 5 percentage points at both second class and sixth class by 2020 (DES, 2011, p.17)

 Reduce the percentage of children performing at or below Level 1 (i.e. minimum level) in the National Assessment of Mathematics and English Reading by at least 5 percentage points at both second class and sixth class by 2020 (DES, 2011, p.18).

168 Hislop argues that “There is no doubt that the targets in the Strategy are ambitious. Nonetheless, I believe that they are realistic and provide a key focus for moving forward as well as a reference point for monitoring progress” (DES, 2011, p.10).

Regarding CPD for teachers, the strategy acknowledges the importance of providing high-quality continuing professional development opportunities for teachers in order to enable them to maintain and enhance their pedagogical understanding and skills, and requiring teachers to undertake professional development courses throughout their teaching careers (DES, 2011, p.30). There is a more expanded explanation of how teachers should develop literacy and numeracy skills than that which was contained in the draft plan (DES, 2011, p.31). It also stresses that teachers need CPD to enable them to “use a continuum of well- considered assessment approaches to determine the next steps in learning and in planning approaches to teaching” (DES, 2011, p.32), which is a development from the draft plan. The actions to achieve these goals include significant changes to ITE. This includes providing adequate time for courses and learning experiences that will develop and assess all student teachers’ understanding and ability to apply current knowledge, strategies and methodologies in the use of assessment for formative, diagnostic and summative purposes, especially in literacy and numeracy” (DES, 2011, p.34). However, similar to the draft plan, practising teachers will only be provided “access” to professional development courses of twenty hours’ duration in assessment (DES, 2011, p.36).

The strategy retains the draft plan’s call for a learning outcomes approach where the curricula should state clearly the skills and competences expected of

169 learners at six points in their development (DES, 2011, p.45). The NCCA and INTO unsuccessfully argue against this proposal in their submissions. It also retains the direction to increase the time allocation for literacy and numeracy, despite the forebodings of the NCCA, INTO and the Teaching Council. The strategy states that the process of assessment should “begin at the level of the individual student to enable the teacher to adjust instruction to suit the needs of individual learners and to inform them and their parents about the progress that they are making” (DES, 2011, p.73). This is more in line with a socio-cultural theory of learning and marks an adjustment from the draft plan. The document also outlines the need for assessment data at the level of the school and at national level to improve performance. The strategy differs from the draft plan by highlighting both Assessment for Learning (AfL) and Assessment of Learning (AoL) approaches. In describing AfL approaches, it states that “the most effective teachers use assessment information on the progress that their students have achieved to date, they share this information with their students, and they use this information to plan the next steps in their teaching and their students’ learning” (DES, 2011, p.74). It asserts that AoL data can come from “teachers’ informed judgements, the students’ performance on tests or tasks constructed by the teacher or school, the students’ performance on standardised assessments” (DES, 2011, p.74). These are descriptors of AfL and AoL approaches in the literature, as described in Chapter 2 (2.4.1 and 2.4.2). The strategy does not comment on the debate about the underlining theoretical nature of assessment. The overview of AfL and AoL is followed by a section on standardised tests, which the strategy states are “scientifically constructed” (DES, 2011, p.75). It argues that these tests can compare a child’s achievement with his/her peers and demonstrate the rate of progress that he/she makes over time. The strategy argues

170 that there are shortcomings in how teachers use the information and how it is reported to parents. It states that “some of this may be attributed to shortcomings in initial teacher education and to the lack of focus on assessment in teachers’ continuing professional development” (DES, 2011, p.76). The proposal for Schools

Like Ours, which was criticised by the INTO, has been removed from the strategy. It

retains that primary schools should report aggregated data from standardised tests to the DES (DES, 2011, p.79). The strategy mandates that ITE courses include mandatory modules to enable teachers to:

 “inform the planning of subsequent steps in students’ learning of literacy and numeracy, i.e. assessment for learning (AfL) approaches

 monitor effectively learners’ achievement in literacy and numeracy, i.e. assessment of learning (AoL) approaches  document students’ learning in literacy and numeracy and

report to parents, other teachers and other professionals as appropriate

 identify specific learning needs” (DES, 2011, p.80).

The actions for serving teachers ensure that they only have “access” to CPD in these areas (DES, 2011, p.80). The strategy calls for schools to use assessment data to develop three year whole school improvement plans. It also provides for “guidance on how best standardised assessment data may be aggregated, tracked over time and interpreted to support robust school self-evaluation” (DES, 2011, p.82). The strategy retains the draft plan’s proposal to add a further mandated testing stage in primary education (4th class).

171

6.4 Conclusion

In relation to Sahlberg’s six GERM features (2011), the literacy and numeracy strategy can be analysed as follows:

(i) Standardisation: The belief amongst policy makers that setting clear and

sufficiently high performance standards for schools, teachers and pupils will improve the quality of desired outcomes.

This is evident in the strategy through the setting of targets for primary education to achieve by 2020.

(ii) Increased focus on literacy and numeracy: Basic knowledge in literacy

and numeracy are now seen as indicators of success or failure for schools, teachers, pupils and the system as a whole.

This is present also as the strategy emphasises literacy and numeracy as core skills that should be prioritised above other areas.

(iii) Teach for predetermined results: Approaches emphasising the

achievement of standards are adopted. Experimentation, alternative approaches and risk-taking are minimised.

This element is not present in the strategy. However, the strategy’s emphasis on target setting, as well as the mandated reporting of standardised tests to Boards of Management and the DES, and the increased number of compulsory standardised tests in the primary cycle may result in a narrower conception of education amongst teachers. There may be a danger of what Taylor Webb (2006) outlines as a “choreography of accountability”, in which teachers generate performances of their work in order to satisfy accountability demands (2.5.1).

172

(iv) Transfer of innovation from corporate to the educational world:

Educational policies are lent and rented from the business world, often facilitated by international development organisations.

This is not present in the strategy. It does not highlight the need for parental choice in types of schools, similar to the UK experience. It also avoids the linkage of funding with results in national assessments, such as the USA model.

(v) Test-based accountability policies: School performance is tied to the

processes of accrediting, promoting, inspecting and rewarding or punishing schools. The success or failure of schools is determined by standardised tests and external evaluations.

This is an element that is contained in the strategy, albeit in a low stakes manner. The aggregated results reported to the DES will not be published and the comparative Schools Like Ours proposal from the draft plan was omitted.

(vi) Increased control of schools: Centrally mandated educational standards

narrow the space for teachers to create optimal learning environments.

The strategy calls for a new curriculum based on learning outcomes, which will be implemented in the coming years. Research is needed to ascertain the strategy’s impact on teachers’ methodologies.

Lingard et al. (2013) argue that there has been a development of a ‘metapolicy’ in educational assessment around the world, and note that these discourse manifest themselves in localised ways in various countries (3.3.1). They term this a ‘vernacular globalisation’ of education policy and it is apparent in

173 Takayama’s research (2013) in Japan. This demonstrates that global policy was mitigated by the Ministry for Education to assuage the harsher elements of economic rationalisation (see 3.4.2.1). Overall, Literacy and numeracy for learning and life demonstrates some elements of a response to accountability trends in educational policies. It also shows how some of the more severe elements of this (publication of league tables, funding based on results) have been avoided in the Irish primary education context.

174

CHAPTER 7 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF HIGH PROFILE