Academic resigns from Leaving Cert maths reform group over ‘incoherent and inaccurate’ courses

Vivienne Clarke

Associate Professor of Mathematics Education at DCU, Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin, who has stepped down from the Mathematics Development Group, which advises the National Council for Curriculum Assessment, said she did so because she was not prepared to be associated with a document of such poor quality that was “incoherent and mathematically inaccurate.

“I think it will do a disservice to our young people,” she told RTÉ radio’s Morning Ireland.

“It will fail to adequately prepare them for their future lives in society and work and study because mathematics underpins so many aspects of our world but particularly STEM which is so important to our economy. And I think at the heart of this, it's a systems issue.

"Subject experts are not formally or consistently included in any subject development group.”

Ní Shúilleabháin said that the work being done by the Mathematics Development Group was “hugely important”, as its role was to effectively draft the new maths curriculum specification for the way maths was being taught in schools.

“Mathematics is a human endeavour like all other subjects and it's important that we look at what we are teaching our young people, consider is it of value to them, is it going to prepare them for their future lives in society, in work, in study and consider then what is it that we should be asking them to learn or the skills we ask them to build while they are in school.”

In January, Professor Pauline Mellon also left the group expressing similar concerns.

Ní Shúilleabháin pointed out that experts were being asked to participate in curriculum changes, but their contributions were being ignored which had led to “frustrations and resignations” in other science subjects.

“I'm very worried about the lack of rigor or the reduction in content and abstraction that we have for our high achieving students, this seems to be a systems issue.

“There were excellent people on this group and I want to absolutely say that I very much enjoyed working with people on the group and there's some excellent teachers on the group and that is necessary.

“However, the balance of subject matter experts has to be there with pedagogy experts and teachers, as is done in most other countries where you have a good balance of subject experts and teachers. But in this case, it's the decision-making processes that continue to be opaque.

“Within the group, if people made suggestions, you would not understand or realise if they would be adopted or not, if they were agreed with or not, if they would be ignored or not, because mathematical errors, as an example, were independently and objectively corrected by separate members of this group and that has been consistently ignored.”

When asked if efforts were being made to dumb down the Leaving Cert maths course, Ní Shúilleabháin said she did not like such language, but there had never been an opportunity to ask what would students need in 10 years time.

“They're going to be graduating at a time or coming into a world of work at a time that is data-driven and AI-based.

"Is there mathematics topics or mathematical skills that we are not teaching them currently that will benefit them into the future? That discussion was not had, and I think that's to a detriment of our young people.”

The decision-making process on the curriculum was very opaque, she added. It was not known within the subject groups what suggestions, proposals or corrections would be accepted.

“If I had trust that after the public consultation, fundamental changes could be made to this curriculum and errors corrected and the content made coherent, I would have stayed. But I do not trust that that is the process.”

Ní Shúilleabháin said she “consistently” shared her concerns with the Mathematics group and members of the NCCA and had requested a meeting with the Minister for Education.

“My concerns go beyond mathematics. I also think that we should be really preparing our young people for the climate and nature crisis that are ahead.

"If we look at our biology curricula, plant-based science has been reducing in content consistently. That's because the subject matter experts aren't there. This is a systems problem with how we design our national policy documents that are our curriculum documents for secondary schools."

Prof Pauline Mellon of the UCD School of Mathematics, who earlier this year resigned from the Mathematics Development Group which advises the National Council for Curriculum Assessment, said she had resigned because the process was not fit for purpose and she could not give her stamp of approval to the curricula in that state.

“I was concerned, first of all, about the state of the curricula at the time.

There were problems with all three levels, foundation, ordinary and higher,” she told RTÉ radio’s Today with David McCullagh show.

“And at the same time, I could see that feedback was not being taken on board. I had exhausted every possible avenue to try and get my voice heard. And I resigned because I feel they're not fit for purpose. And I can't give any stamp of approval to the curricula in that state.”

Advice was not listened to, everything was very tightly controlled, she added.

“There was, I believe, lack of engagement. Unfortunately, I think there's a wider problem with the process, which is intrinsic to what's actually going on.

“The NCCA do not routinely or formally or systematically in any way involve subject experts. There's very few. So there might be 20 people around the table with only one or two subject experts. And that's not that doesn't appear to be accidental because similar concerns have been raised with other subjects.”

Mellon said she had tried to raise her concerns within the group and had produced several documents, as did other members of the group, but those documents and feedback seemed to “go into a black hole.”

“Nothing was ever circulated to a group. So there was it seemed to me that the (2:47) NCCA personnel were trying to control the outcome.”

There had been feedback from different cohorts, she said, but it had not been allowed to be shown to those who were tasked with writing the syllabus.

“We were told that that was NCCA policy, that the public consultation feedback couldn't be provided to the members of the group tasked with writing the syllabus.

“So I'm afraid I have no faith in the public consultation process.

“There was no opportunity to say, look, we're now in an increasingly data-driven world. The rise of AI, we should really consider what's the mathematics behind this? What is going to enable students to engage in this data-driven, AI-driven world?

“We should have been looking at those kinds of broader questions. I can guarantee you that not a single minute of the 17 months I was on the committee was allowed to be given to any such broad considerations.”

Mellon said she had particular concern about higher level maths. “I think there's so much material has been cut, very poorly specified.

"A particular concern is that what I would describe as the essence of mathematics is really diminished.”

On the same programme, Humphrey Jones, head of biology and science at St Columba’s College, said similar frustrations had been experienced by members of the committee tasked with creating the science syllabus.

Consultation data submitted by development groups was not included in the final documents, he said. Under Freedom of Information, his group had found that none of the information produced was included in the final document from the NCCA.

“We have our frustrations as well. Members, representatives of the Irish University Association within the science specifications for biology, chemistry and physics, all of them formally dissociated from the final specification in protest for what was being produced as well.

"So again, they're subject experts and they're not happy with the final documentation either.”