Last year I stood with my colleagues and over 40,000 teachers to protest against the rushed leaving certificate reform proposed by the Government. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Foley, referred to the reform as equity and excellence for all. The most important part of reform to any curriculum, as I think the Minister will agree, is to benefit students. Take two students, one in a local voluntary school and one in a private fee-paying school. It will come as no surprise that private schools are well equipped with technology, suites of laboratories and, in some cases, lab technicians to advise on the use of the lab. Then move to the local voluntary school: 100-year-old infrastructure, more than likely two very basic science labs, sporadic Wi-Fi connection. In other words, the Minister is presiding over a senior cycle reform that favours children of more affluent families. We in Labour are open to reform and understand it is necessary, but we are opposed to rushed, poorly thought-out and poorly resourced reform. We have asked continuously for the establishment of a new convention on education, inclusive of young people, teachers, parents and stakeholders. Where is it? With the introduction of projects, 40% of every subject is being left open to manipulation. Can the Minister guarantee us today that the honours leaving certificate of 2027 will have the same integrity and respect as the one currently being sat? The revised syllabus for leaving certificate science subjects and others will begin for current transition year students, who will be next year's fifth years, yet the teachers of leaving certificate biology, chemistry and physics, as well as business and other subjects, have had just one subject-specific training day. Put yourself in the shoes of a chemistry teacher who will be teaching the new syllabus, including a whopping 40% individual project, with basically a few hours of in-service. This is totally unfair on teachers and is definitely unfair on students. Full training must be provided prior to the rolling out of any new syllabus but that is not happening on the ground. Why are teachers not being fully trained prior to the introduction of a syllabus in their subject? I commend Oide for doing its very best under difficult circumstances. The rushed senior cycle reform means the ink is barely dry on the syllabus before it is expected to roll out a national training initiative. It is all so rushed. Why? Will the Minister tell teachers, students and parents watching this the following? Is she okay with presiding over a senior cycle reform that favours children of more affluent families? Will she train teachers properly prior to rolling out any updated syllabuses? Is she committed to holding a convention on leaving certificate reform? Will she thoroughly engage with teachers who will teach these subjects to our next generation?

Sentiment score: 0.15

Absolutely. My greatest objective is that students across the country are open to this reform and benefit from it. The Minister said she is fully equipping schools. For seven years I was taught in prefabs. That is what happens in local voluntary schools across this country. The Government pays €90 million per year for prefabs. The Minister referred to business. I taught business studies up to November. In September I took on a cohort of transition year students. I had to tell them I knew nothing about the specification they were going to be doing. I had one training day, a few hours of in-service. How could I possibly ask them to keep on business studies? I did not know the specification; therefore, they definitely were not going to know it. That is the reality on the ground. Will the Minister engage with unions of teachers? She is not engaging with them. Forty thousand of us stood outside schools last year. The Minister has not engaged and is willing to go forward with this rushed reform. She needs to engage with teachers. They are the ones on the ground teaching these subjects.

Sentiment score: 0.07