The “flawed” Leaving Cert agricultural science syllabus that “caused great distress to teachers and students” was examined for the first time yesterday (Monday, June 21).
The new syllabus introduced in 2019, which “modernised the old, outdated course” was initially welcomed by the Irish Agricultural Science Teachers’ Association (IASTA).
However, over the past two years, teachers “have experienced huge problems in trying to interpret a very vague and poorly constructed syllabus document called a ‘specification'”.
“In fact, the main problem with the document published by the Department of Education was that it was not specific at all,” according to the IASTA.
‘Major problems’ with Leaving Cert syllabus
Back in October, members of the association sent a submission to Minister for Education Norma Foley “pointing out the two major problems associated with teaching the new specification”.
The first “problem” is the template used to design the new specification, which consists “simply of a list of learning outcomes with no additional information accompanying”.
The second problem is the “flaws” in the learning outcomes – “the fact that the learning outcomes are written in a vague and incorrect manner means that many of them are impossible to interpret by teachers and students alike”.
In January, the IASTA circulated a survey to teachers and of the 278 who completed it, only one rated their level of confidence in delivering the new specification as “very confident”.
However, “despite all the above concerns being expressed to Minister Foley, no action has been taken to address” them.
“Agricultural science is a subject that is vital to the economy of Ireland,” the IASTA said.
“There is a real fear among teachers that this poor quality syllabus could severely impact on the number of students choosing to take agricultural science as a Leaving Cert subject.
“Teachers of agricultural science are the key to excellence in curriculum implementation in the classroom and deserve better than being provided with a sub-standard syllabus that does not measure up to international best practice.”