The problems with the new primary school curriculum

 

The Department of Education has published the redeveloped Primary School Curriculum. It contains five broad subject areas and they will be all rolled out in schools over the next few months. Last year, during the consultation process, the Iona Institute presented concerns about the draft proposals, concerns that have now been confirmed by what has been presented.

For example, compared with the previous version from 1999, the new curriculum has downgraded the place of religion and spirituality. It remains the case that patron bodies such as the Catholic Church can still emphasise religion, but nonetheless it is depressing to see the Irish State demote it compared with 26 years ago. The new Wellbeing Specification goes even further in this regard.

“Being spiritual” is one of the key components of “being well” in the Primary Curriculum Framework, yet the Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) specification omits it. Although the “spiritual” dimension is acknowledged in principle, no specified curriculum outcomes or learning content give shape to this. There is a clear mismatch between the framework’s ambition and the specification’s content. It offers no concrete outcomes or content linked to religious practice, even though extensive evidence shows that religious faith, communal worship, and spiritual identity contribute significantly to psychological wellbeing, mental health, life purpose, and social cohesion.

Marriage, another foundational social institution, is similarly neglected. The relationships programme does not explicitly mention marriage. Given the strong empirical evidence on how stable marriage benefits individuals, especially children, and society at large, its absence is conspicuous. For children learning about family, relationships, responsibility and social structures, not to include marriage as a topic undermines completeness, leaving out a significant part of many children’s lives.

A further item to note is the treatment of sexual orientation in the curriculum. One of the learning outcomes for 5th and 6th classes is that students will “begin to understand sexual orientation as describing attraction to someone of a different gender, the same gender or more than one gender.” This marks a shift: sexual orientation is now defined in terms of gender, not sex. Why then is it called “sexual”? Gender as a category is not tied to objective biology but to social or psychological identity, which is subjective and fluid. Also, what does “more than one gender” mean?

We also see a strange choice in the supporting materials for the Social and Environmental Education curriculum. Three topics are mentioned: the history of the GAA, the 1916 Rising — both of which play an important role in Irish identity — and then “The History of Buddhism and its continuing influence on modern life.” Buddhism has little historical significance in Ireland, or in Western society, compared with Christianity (especially Catholicism). According to the most recent Census, there are fewer than 10,000 Buddhists in Ireland, in a population of more than 5 million. Why such an emphasis on an essentially marginal tradition, at the expense of more deeply rooted ones?

These omissions and inconsistencies point to a curriculum that is less reflective of Ireland’s cultural heritage.

In our submission, we also raised concerns about how appropriate it is for primary school children to engage in political discussion. The Social and Environmental Education (SEE) curriculum specification states that “learning in SEE provides opportunities for children to explore and think critically about social and environmental justice issues from different perspectives.” But can such discussions genuinely take place without being shaped, even inadvertently, by the views of the adult in the room, particularly if that teacher holds strong political opinions?