Coláiste Mhuire Marino Institute of Education Response to “Better Literacy and Numeracy for Children and Young People: A Draft National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools” Introduction The academic community of Coláiste Mhuire, Marino Institute of Education welcomes the publications of the Draft National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools, Better Literacy and Numeracy for Children and Young People. In particular we appreciate the opportunity to consider and debate the draft plan and to develop our response. Our suggestions and comments on the draft plan are outlined under a number of broad themes: 1.1 A research‐based rationale in curriculum reform and policy development 1.2 International experiences of national standards and league tables 1.3 A utilitarian approach to curriculum and the threat to educational drama 1.4 Integrated approach to literacy and numeracy 1.5 Literacy development and the EAL learner 1.6 Specific recommendations and concluding comments 1.1 A research‐based rationale in curriculum reform and policy development What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy John Dewey, 1899 Ongoing evaluation of policy and practice is essential for the continued development of literacy and numeracy education in Ireland. However, the lack of a research‐based rationale renders problematic the recent Draft Plan. Of particular concern is the narrow, utilitarian view of education (and of literacy and numeracy) evident in the document, which is contrary to the broad, child‐centred philosophy underpinning Irish primary education since the 1970s and enshrined in the Primary School Curriculum of 1999. Meyer et al., (1992) describe educational change as “world movements” whereby an idea spreads across the globe and is interpreted and implemented based on local needs and practices. According to Goodson (2004), we are well served to identify where our practices fit within an international and historical perspective, because otherwise we can fall victim to the “amnesia” that accompanies excitement about “new” educational directions, sometimes leading to “willful disregard” of the experiences (and pitfalls) of other nations and times. He cautions that educators should nurture their critical thinking skills in order to avoid being “beguiled” by movements that are politically rather than educationally motivated. This Draft Plan offers little evidence that the measures recommended will improve literacy and numeracy. Equally, it does not appear to be based on any coherent philosophical or empirical platform. The document contains mixed messages in a number of areas including for example Early Childhood Education. It would appear from the Draft Plan that the Aistear framework would be adapted and adopted as the Infant Curriculum. Notwithstanding the undoubted value of the Aistear framework (particularly its focus on play as a key process underpinning the learning of young children) it does not explicitly outline the essential components of effective literacy instruction. These components namely, phonological and phonemic awareness development, letter knowledge, basic sight vocabulary, phonics, 1 guided reading of levelled texts, comprehension strategy instruction, spelling (approximate), fluency, vocabulary development, need to be clearly identified within a coherent instructional framework. Aistear is a curricular framework as distinct from a curriculum. Its aims and learning goals, though appropriate and valuable, are focussed on learning experiences and not on learning outcomes. Aistear emphasises process and relies on teacher expertise to provide learning experiences for children which will result in rich (unarticulated) outcomes. 1.2 International experiences of national standards and league tables Eisner (2002) warns of the danger of creating an industrial culture in our schools where achievement, measured by incessant testing, triumphs over inquiry. The emphasis on national standardised testing on pages 39‐43 of this document may be a case in point. While the document maintains that “It is certainly not about publishing “league tables” or rank‐ordering schools” (p. 41), the outcomes of the approaches described could be similar. In this sense, it is appropriate, as indicated by Goodson (2004), to look to the recent experiences in both Britain and America. In Britain, the National Curriculum introduced by the Thatcher government in 1987, was trumpeted as the application of business models to education – it would ensure that all schools were held to standard, to work efficiently, providing value for money. However, education is not business, and it may be that many of the ideals of a democratic education were lost in the drive for efficiency (Kelly, 2009). Blenkin et al., (1992) maintain that these approaches view schools as factories where teachers are invited to view their task as “delivering a product” subject to “quality control mechanisms” and “economic costings”. As part of the drive towards “accountability” schools in Britain are evaluated by examination results (or “National Standards”) which are published in league tables. Kelly (2009) describes such league tables as “key instruments in the establishment of direct political control... imposing a narrow and bureaucratic form of teacher accountability” (p. 18). He maintains that the assessment forms used in Britain are designed to provide information for league tables rather than providing information about the learning of individual children, and we would be wise to caution against similar approaches being applied to literacy and numeracy in Ireland. Similar experiences in relation to standardised testing are in evidence in America also. With the publication of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002), the ground shifted in American educational practice. This Act represented the most sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since its enactment in 1965, redefining the federal role in education (Smith 2003), placing an emphasis on educational practice related to “scientifically‐based research” (Smith, 2005). NCLB requires accountability for all children including student groups based on poverty, race, ethnicity and disability (US Department of Education 2003). These may be very constructive aims, but it seems that in the years since the passing of the Act, the standardised approaches to testing and measurement that have been introduced have served only to stymie educational progress – similar to the British experience of such approaches. According to Hursch (2007), the evidence regarding the process and outcome of high‐stakes testing raises doubts about whether test scores tell us very much about student learning. In fact, according to O’Donnell (2010), standardised testing may have led to a situation where teachers are, at best, teaching only what they know is likely to appear on the test, limiting the scope and objectives of a democratic education, and at worst cheating on the tests, particularly in circumstances where their pay, or perhaps even their employment, is linked to test scores. O’Donnell also maintains that the emphasis placed by NCLB on standardised testing has led to exclusionary practices because schools don’t want to include students with disabilities who might bring down their score averages. This is precisely the 2 opposite outcome to what the Act aimed to achieve, with its commendable emphasis on inclusion for all and a vision of an America where “no child was left behind”. The spectre of standardised testing looms large in Ireland at present, with the Draft National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy (2010) identifying approaches including published National Targets and standardised testing. While it is easy to get “carried away” by the concern surrounding our recent PISA results, as Goodson (2004) points out, if we fail to learn from the experiences of our international colleagues in education, we fall victim to the “amnesia” associated with politically motivated educational and curriculum reform. In this case, if we are to learn from the examples particularly of Britain and America, we can see that standardised testing and league tables may lead teachers in Ireland to “teach to the test” or even “cheat to the test” and the result may be a narrowing of educational and curricular focus as well as less inclusive practices in order to avoid falling grade averages. 1.3 A utilitarian approach to curriculum and the threat to educational drama Of particular concern is the narrow, utilitarian view of education (and of literacy and numeracy) evident in the document, which is contrary to the broad, child‐centred philosophy underpinning Irish primary education since the 1970s and enshrined in the Primary School Curriculum of 1999. Recommendations in the draft plan include: ‘a relentless focus on literacy and numeracy’ (p. 51), the prioritisation of ‘these skills’ over ‘other desirable, important but ultimately less vital issues’ (p. 11), ‘focussing school self‐
evaluation and school inspection on literacy and numeracy (p. 13) and the development of ‘a generic skills‐based programme adapted for all schools’ (p. 20). The narrow emphasis on ‘the 3 rs’ in the plan represents a radical shift in ideology which has no foundation in research. Cognisance should be taken of Nunan’s notion of ‘evolution not revolution’ in curriculum change (2009). This plan represents a dilution of the principles of 1999 curriculum. The Primary School Curriculum 1999 has been justifiably admired by many writers (Waldron, 2004) as a holistic, child‐centred approach to education that incorporates the importance of emotional expression (largely through language) and recognition of the skills and abilities of all children. There is a real danger that utilitarian approaches to development of literacy and numeracy skills, such as for example the removal of drama, or at least its relegation to a sub‐section of literacy activities (pp.29‐
30), could undermine this philosophy. Drama has been recognised as an effective approach to supporting emotional expression in children, affecting their physical and mental health, reducing stress levels and improving the learning experience (Hall et al., 2005). Research has highlighted the potential of affective interaction in educational drama and story‐telling as far back as the 1970’s (e. g. Stotland et al., 1978). Equally, drama offers an opportunity for children to achieve and be successful in areas beyond the verbal‐linguistic and logical‐mathematical domains of literacy and numeracy. The experience of such achievement has been shown repeatedly in the psychological literature to impact on children’s self‐
esteem (e. g. Santrock, 1998), self‐efficacy (e. g. Bandura, 1994) and motivation (e. g. Gage and Berliner, 1998). Drama looks at ‘identity and community‐ the need to be and the need to belong’ (O, Neill 1988:3). It is a social art form which enables children to learn about themselves and about living and working with others. Neelands (1992:5) asserts that drama through exploring ‘stories‐in‐action’ provides young people with the means to express their own opinion and to develop central societal concepts such as democracy, justice and freedom as well as personal concepts such as love, relationships and family. Educational drama is not concerned with acting out stories from start to finish but rather dwells in those moments of tension and ambiguity because it is in exploring those moments that learning can take place. Children working in role are required to address specific problems as they arise resulting in their being in control of the direction that the story takes. Drama is, therefore, a problem‐posing subject. The 3 teacher asks genuine questions within the fiction and poses ‘real’ problems which call for a ‘critical response’ as defined by Shor (1992:169). The narrow emphasis on literacy and numeracy in the Draft Plan represents a significant threat to child‐
centred approach which is a central tenet of the 1999 curriculum. 1.4 An integrated approach to literacy and numeracy One of the key principles of the primary curriculum is that ‘language has a vital role to play in children’s development’ (DES 1999 p.15). The curriculum cites that ‘much learning takes place through the interaction of language and experience’ and therefore that the use of talk and discussion is a central learning strategy in every curriculum area (DES 1999 p.15). Curriculum reviews evidence that the looking and responding strand unit of the Visual Arts primary school curriculum is not being fully implemented as outlined in curriculum intentions (NCCA 2005, DES 2005). This is one example of missed opportunities for literacy promotion through other subject areas. The draft national plan highlights that numeracy and literacy are not exclusively taught through Mathematics and English (whether that be L1 or L2, depending on the school). The integration of learning and the transfer of learning, a further two principles of learning in the curriculum, express that all subjects in the primary curriculum have a key role in their development. A central feature of the curriculum is the acquisition of the child’s ability to transfer particular concepts, skills and language learned in one curriculum area to other learning contexts. For example a key feature of the mathematics curriculum is to develop the child’s prediction, estimation and problem solving skills. These very same skills reside in many other curriculum areas. The nature of creating, composing, exploring, experimenting, performing all utilise these transferrable skills. The memorisation, understanding and appropriate application of facts are numeracy skills that are shared with other curriculum areas. Synthesising and communicating concepts can be developed effectively through the SESE curriculum. For example, Geography includes map‐reading and graphicacy in the list of skills and concepts to be developed in all areas. From a kinaesthetic perspective physical education also entails the utilisation of the aforementioned numeracy skills. Similarly, in relation to literacy development, the curriculum emphasises that ‘the approach to teaching and learning in reading is based on a child’s general language development and on the development of phonemic and phonological awareness’ (DES 1999 p. 45). Every curriculum area provides opportunities for both general and subject specific language development. In order to critique a piece of music, art, a performance or a theory a child must have competence and confidence in using language, one of the four strand units of the English language. In music, investigating the rhythmic patterns of words contributes to children’s phonological development. Conversely, children use literacy through their invented notations as a tool for developing musical understanding. Given that learning to read and write involves visual and auditory processing, the arts have much to offer in terms of perceptual and auditory discrimination skills. Therefore there needs to be greater promotion of the opportunities that already exist within the curriculum in relation to literacy and numeracy development. However, there may be a need for a heightened awareness among practising teachers of these existing opportunities. Furthermore, promoting these would have a doubling effect: greater appreciation for and implementation of these often critical reflective curriculum components and increased attention to vocabulary development, semiotics, reflective thinking, creative problem solving, theorising and questioning. (Bloomfield and Childs 200; Davis, 2008; Eisner 2008 and Koster, 2009). Rather than increasing discrete time for English 4 and Maths, as happened in the UK following a decrease in literacy and numeracy standards, perhaps a focus on increasing teachers’ awareness and understanding of the possibilities of integration is more appropriate. This may be achieved through Initial Teacher Education curriculum courses which have a meaningful and purposeful focus on literacy and numeracy, regardless of the subject area. Purposeful planning at class and whole school level with support and guidance provided through CPD should enable teachers to ensure literacy and numeracy skills are a major teaching emphasis throughout the school day whilst maintaining the integrity of the separate curricular areas. Devoting time within lessons to literacy and numeracy development should not however erode the integrity of individual subjects. The curriculum advocates that no subject should be subsumed by another through the practice of integration. Although we cannot be complacent about the standards of literacy and numeracy we need to safeguard the integrity of all curriculum subjects. Eisner (2008) notes that time allocation for subject areas represents both value and opportunity. The dilution of time in any specific area lessons the importance placed on that subject in terms of its contribution to a child’s development and opportunities for children to engage in learning within and through that subject area. To dilute any curriculum subject is to demote its value and to lessen children’s opportunities for learning within, from and through that subject, including literacy and numeracy development. There is a concern that the report’s use of the term literacy is too narrow to encompass the multi‐
literacies now recognised and researched in education literature. Literacy is now considered to be a generic term which encompasses an ever‐increasing range of literacies required to thrive in a modern world and in this context the term ‘good practice’ might be more appropriate. Eisner (1997, p. 353) considers literacy to be a way of conveying meaning through and recovering meaning from the form of representation in which it appears. O’Toole (2009) argues that the arts, for example, develop multi‐
literacies such as oracy, visual, mathematical, technological, critical, social, functional and aesthetic literacies. He highlights that Drama uniquely emphasises empathic and social literacies. Having regard to Prenksy’s (2008) definition of the skills a 21st Century learner will need, he is specific about student frustration with traditional methods of teaching basic skills. Given the skills of the 21st Century child, and the technologies they are using every day, literacy and numeracy cannot be considered without reference to the digital age we live in. We must ensure that a focus on reading and numeracy does not undermine or negatively impact the growth and development of children’s other literacies. Reference is made in the document to ‘best practice’ (p.20) giving the impression that there is a single ‘best practice’. We recommend the term ‘good practice’ because multiple, different teaching styles and strategies may help teachers to improve the teaching of literacy and numeracy in their classrooms. 1.5 Literacy development and the EAL learner The attention given in the Draft Plan to the need to support improved levels of achievement for students for whom English is an additional language (Section 5.5) is to be welcomed. The Draft Plan highlights the need to support students’ connection with their ‘mother culture and language’ (p. 36), and notes that this connection enhances heritage language proficiency along with improving English‐
language competency. This is also welcome. This view resonates with the Intercultural Education Strategy 2010‐2015, published by the DES and the Office of the Minister for Integration (OMI) in September 2010. It is also helpful that the Draft Plan underlines the shared responsibility for language education amongst all teachers in the school, not only those in a Language Support role. 5 However, it is important to caution against the promotion of a ‘deficit’ view of language difference, which could also be interpreted from this section of the Draft Plan. Instead, a ‘value‐added’ perspective on additional language learning could be encouraged, emphasising the benefits of bilingualism along with the richness that EAL learners bring to the school and to the learning process. For example, Cummins (2000) refers to the ‘additive bilingualism enrichment principle’, suggesting that ‘the proficiency attained by bilingual students in their two languages may exert important influences on their academic and intellectual development’ (ibid, p. 37). Furthermore, some research suggests that the presence of EAL learners in classrooms can facilitate the development of ‘metalinguistic awareness’ on the part of all children, including those from majority language backgrounds. Metalinguistic awareness is defined by Garcia (2009) as ‘the ability to treat language as an object of thought’. Such awareness can be developed in all classrooms, but particularly in multilingual settings, where teachers can actively support children in making connections across languages. The Draft Plan states that ‘a further barrier for immigrant students is their parents’ lack of knowledge of the Irish education system’ (p. 36). This could be perceived as ‘problematising’ first generation migrants, leading to stigmatisation of this group both within the majority culture and within migrant families themselves. Instead, the onus needs to be placed on the Department of Education and Skills to adequately provide for translation and interpreting services in schools along with English language classes for parents. Finally, it is essential to guard against a reductionist view of EAL learning as purely involving the acquisition of linguistic skills. The Draft Plan appears to focus on a technicist model of skills‐acquisition, neglecting other key aspects of ‘critical literacy’ (Short, 2009), which involves engaging with the ‘world’ as well as the ‘words’ of the new society. The kind of literacy development involved in EAL learning, in its broadest and most comprehensive sense, incorporates both of these aspects. 1.6 Specific recommendations and concluding comments 1.6.1 Attracting high quality student teachers Initial teacher education is the core work of our College of Education Coláiste Mhuire Marino. We agree with the research cited on page 15 of the Draft Plan which refers to “recruiting the best students to enter initial teacher education (ITE) courses.” Traditionally the Department of Education and Skills had the power to regulate the supply of teachers for the country, an approach which served the country well. This is no longer the case. Because of the shortage of teachers during the early years of this century the number of teachers prepared soared. There is now an oversupply of teachers in the system. This militates against the overall quality of teachers in the system. The problem was summarised clearly in the 2007 McKinsey Report on Education titled How the World’s Best‐Performing School Systems Come Out on Top: Failing to control entry into teacher training almost invariably leads to an oversupply of candidates which, in turn, has a significant negative effect on teacher quality. In one system we benchmarked, of 100 people that applied to teacher training, only 20 people became teachers. Of this 100, 75 received offers for teacher training places, indicating that it is relatively easy to get into the teacher training program. However, upon graduation, because of over‐supply, they struggle to find jobs as teachers, making the course less appealing to the more able students. In such conditions teacher training became an option for students who had few other options available to them” (p. 18) 6 Given the risk of this scenario happening in Ireland, we recommend that the supply of primary teachers be regulated by the Teaching Council or other such body to maintain the high quality of teachers in our system. 1.6.2 Literacy and numeracy and initial teacher education (ITE) The action point in the Draft Plan that ‘evaluation of the professional competence of the teacher that is necessary for full registration with the Teaching Council includes evaluation of the teacher’s ability to teach literacy and numeracy is to be welcomed as is the action point whereby all ITE students will be required to demonstrate satisfactory skills in the teaching of literacy and numeracy during teaching practice (p. 19). These action points however, require further clarification including explicit explication of the ‘Satisfactory skills in the teaching of literacy and numeracy’ (p. 19). The process by which students will be assessed in the area of literacy and numeracy requires further explanation in order to ensure that the assessment measures reliably, validly and comprehensively, the knowledge and skills which will be required of those students as teachers. One element of such an assessment should be observed lessons in the classroom on Teaching Practice. To support initial teacher education student teachers in the development of satisfactory skills in the teaching of literacy and numeracy during teaching practice (page 19), it is recommended that all student teachers have the opportunity to observe models of good practice during their initial teacher programme and on Teaching Practice and that student teachers obtain input and gain experience in administering assessment tests in literacy and numeracy and reporting on those tests. Specifying and consulting with experts in teacher education about the process by which ‘high quality experienced teachers of literacy and numeracy’ (p. 18), will be identified and recruited will be crucial. It is further recommended that supervisors of numeracy and literacy lessons taught by pre‐service students on Teaching Practice are provided with dedicated training in evaluating numeracy and literacy teaching and in providing pertinent feedback. The proposal to raise the maths entry requirements of candidates applying to initial teacher education is a positive step. However, an equivalent, high entry requirement should be placed on candidates who enter teaching through the postgraduate entry route and upon those with teaching qualifications from other countries who apply for registration with the Teaching Council. 1.6.3 Continuing professional development The recommendation in the Draft Plan to provide teachers with mandatory professional development in literacy and numeracy teaching is to be welcomed. Such courses need to include components that help teachers to develop their own mathematical and literacy knowledge for teaching. Professional development in mathematics and literacy, needs to be addressed within the wider context of an appropriate commitment to the continuum of teacher education and a commitment to lifelong learning. We welcome the proposal to include components on literacy and numeracy on leadership courses. The principal is the leader of a balanced approach to literacy and numeracy. We further recommend that literacy/numeracy co‐ordinating positions be created in all schools to facilitate coherence of instruction and ensure that all schools are updated on current research. 7 The proposal to increase time allocated to literacy and numeracy in schools is to be welcomed but must be done in the context of curriculum reform and teacher development. Increasing the time allocation without improving the quality of teaching may be of little benefit 1.6.4 Concluding comment The publication of the Draft National Policy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools has generated welcome discussion on strategies to reverse falling standards in literacy and numeracy in schools. The Marino response provides an overview of the main elements of that discussion and recommendations that we hope will improve the final version of the Plan. Bibliography Bandura, A. (1994). Self Efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 71‐81). New York: Academic Press. Blenkin, G. M. (1992). Progression, observation and assessment in early education: The context. In G. M. Blenkin, G. Edwards and A. V. Kelly (Eds.), Assessment in Early Childhood Education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Blenkin, G. M., Edwards, G. and Kelly, A. V. (Eds.) (1992). Assessment in Early Childhood Education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing 8 Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Department of Education and Skills (2010). Better Literacy and Numeracy for Children and Young People: A Draft National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools. Dublin: Stationery Office. Department of Education and Skills. (2010). Intercultural Education Strategy 2010‐2015. Dublin: DES & OMI Dewey, J. (1915) The School and Society and The Child and The Curriculum New York: BN Publishing Eisner, E. (2002) ‘What Can Education Learn from The Arts about the Practice of Education?’ A Lecture given as the John Dewey Lecture Stanford University Gage, N. L. and Berliner, D. C. (1998). Educational Psychology. NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Chichester: Wiley‐
Blackwell. Hall, L., Woods, S., Aylett, R., Newall, L. and Paiva, A. (2005). Achieving Empathic Engagement Through Affective Interaction with Synthetic Characters. Presented at CHI Workshop on HCI Challenges in Health Assessment, Portland, Oregon, 2005. Hursch, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the Rise of Neoliberal Education Policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 3, 493‐518. Kelly, A.V. (2009). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. 6th edition London: Sage Meyer, J.W, Kamens, D.H. and Benavot, A. (1992) School Knowledge for the Masses. London and Washington DC: Falmer Press. Neelands (1992) Learning Through Imagined Experience. London: Hodder and Stoughton Educational. NCCA (2009) Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum Framework. Dublin: The Stationery Office No Child Left Behind Act (2001) 20 USC 6319 (2008). Nunan, D. (1999) Second Language Teaching and Learning, Boston, M.A.: Newbury House Teacher Development. O’Donnell, A. (2010). Teacher Education in the U.S. A lecture given on November 24th in St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra. O’Neill, C. (1988). Drama Guidelines. London: Heinemann Educational Century Digital Learner, Edutopia Prenksy, Marc (2008). The 21st http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky‐The_Role_of_Technology‐ET‐11‐12‐08.pdf 9 online, Santrock, J. W. (1998). Adolescence. Boston, MA: McGraw‐Hill. Smith, A. (2003). Scientifically Based Research and Evidence‐Based Education: A federal Policy Context. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 3, 126‐132. Smith, L. (2005). Staff roles, responsibilities and relationships in schools for children with severe, profound and multiple learning disabilities in Ireland. M.Phil, Dublin Institute of Technology. Shor, I. (1992) Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change, Chicago: University of Chicago Short, K.G. (2009). Critically Reading the Word and the World: Building Intercultural Understanding through Literature. Bookbird, No. 2. Stotland, E., Mathews, K. E., Sherman, S. E., Hannson, R. O., and Richardson, B. Z. (1978). Empathy, fantasy and helping. Beverly Hills: Sage. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156207e.pdf Waldron, F. (2004). Making the Irish: Identity and citizenship in the primary curriculum. In C. Sugrue (Ed) Curriculum and Ideology: Irish Experiences, International Perspectives. Dublin: The Liffey Press 10