Even as demographic trends have seen a major shift from rural to urban dwelling, our education system is still influenced by farming and the rural way of life. Nine weeks of summer holidays with breaks in winter and spring reflect the need to save crops that ripen during the summer.
Given the changed way of life, it might be timely to revisit the standardised school year and move towards four or six breaks spread evenly through the year.
The advantages would include doing away with the long nine-week break, which creates massive learning problems for children with learning difficulties or special needs. Parents and teachers know the challenge of trying to help children recover what they have forgotten after the long summer holidays. It would also spread holidays and reduce the number of weeks at peak-season prices.
The phrase Mens sana in corpore sano ("a healthy mind in a healthy body") reflects a holistic approach to education. It is apt now, as society grapples with mental health issues. However, the time dedicated to physical education is one hour a week in the primary curriculum. Aside from the absence of indoor PE facilities in many schools, the scheduled time indicates how poorly we understand its importance. In a recent IPPN survey of some 1,000 principals, 85 per cent said PE should be allocated more time.
Equally, the time set aside on the curriculum for social, personal and health education is just 30 minutes a week at primary level. Considering that it must address topics ranging from understanding and describing feelings to how to stay safe, the time is simply not enough.
So then, is the revised curriculum, which is less than 16 years old, fit for purpose?
It’s not so much curriculum content I’m concerned about, but the insistence on presenting it on a traditional subject-by-subject basis. This inevitably results in different lobbying groups wanting more time in an already overloaded curriculum.
Best way forward
Two obvious strategies should be explored. The first is to strip down the 11 subjects on the curriculum and reconstruct it based on connected themes and topics, through which content can be taught on an integrated basis. Obvious examples are modules involving Gaeilge and PE, maths and science, English and SPHE, drama and music, history and English, maths and geography.
SPHE is important for today’s children, growing up in a world in which media constantly compete for their hearts, minds and pockets. Never in the history of humankind has any single product taken so much resources from families through children’s “pester power” as the mobile phone.
Schools have reacted in different ways to this communications revolution, most commonly banning the use of mobiles in schools. Given the increase in cyberbullying, which sometimes leads to tragic outcomes, it’s not surprising that some schools ban any device that can be used to offend. On the other hand, there’s an argument for tackling the abuse of social media by teaching children how to use technology productively and safely.
In a reconstructed curriculum, social media technology would fit into many modules. Parents struggling to keep up with constant changes in communication can’t put their heads in the sand.
Teaching children traditional life skills may become a reality sooner than we think. The number of children from homes with real food poverty is increasing. Many lack the basic skills to contribute to their families. Being able to plant seeds to grow vegetables and herbs, sewing buttons, basic cooking such as boiling an egg, sweeping the floor, washing up after a meal are essential life skills.
From the early 1990s onwards, we have effectively disabled our children from learning life skills that were previously commonplace. I’m not saying we should convert our classrooms into workshops or kitchens, but there is tremendous scope for the curriculum to address life skills.
A major challenge facing parents is the overt early sexualisation of children. The worlds of music, fashion, film all portray “the ideal” body shape, clothing and so on. Girls in particular are under severe pressure to dress according to the role models put forward by vested interests. Schools alone can’t solve this problem, but it is a good example of where the curriculum needs direct involvement of parents.
Only by co-operation between home and school can we bring about change. This requires the development of a whole new curriculum concept, with home and school working in tandem towards a common goal.
If the curriculum is to be fit for purpose, it must involve parents – who are, after all, the primary educators.
