Literacy Policy in Ireland

Literacy Policy in Ireland

Eithne Kennedy

IntroductionThroughout the past decade and a half many governments worldwide have put anunparalleled emphasis on educational policy, particularly in relation to literacy.This emphasis highlights literacy as ‘a human right, a tool of personal empower-ment and a means for social and human development’ (www.unesco.org). Such anemphasis also concedes that, even in highly-developed Western countries, a size-able gap exists between the literacy achievement of children in low socio-economicstatus communities and that of their more affluent peers (OECD, 2010; EU,2012), thus, highlighting underachievement in literacy as a universal social justiceissue inhibiting many individuals from reaching their potential.

The process of policy formulation and implementation has varied widely acrossjurisdictions. Some have taken a top-down approach and have proven controver-sial, particularly in the US and the UK where they have been accompanied by anaccountability agenda and high levels of prescription in relation to pedagogy andassessment. However, while literacy has recently moved to centre stage in Ireland,we have not seen the same level of specificity in relation to curriculum, instructionand monitoring as elsewhere. This may be due in part to the level of consultationtaken in relation to policy development and implementation where a partnershipapproach has prevailed since the early 90s, not just in education circles, but alsomore widely across the system.

Ireland has experienced more than a decade of constant and intense changein its education system, beginning with the introduction of the revised nationalPrimary School Curriculum (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment[NCCA]/Department of Education and Skills [DES], 1999), the establishment ofthe Primary Curriculum Support Programme [PCSP] and School DevelopmentPlanning Support services, the creation of the Teaching Council (established inlaw in 2001, but not operational until 2006), the passing of the Education ofPersons with Special Education Needs Act (Government of Ireland, 2004),the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools Strategy [DEIS] (DES,2005) which aimed to bring together all the government initiatives to amelioratedisadvantage under the one strategic plan and Aistear, the new early childhoodframework (NCCA, 2009). Furthermore, demographic changes and the riseand fall of the Irish economy have all added to pressures in the educationallandscape.

More recently, key policy documents were launched, including: the NationalStrategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and Young People2011–2020 (DES, 2011a) and the Policy on the Continuum of TeacherEducation (Teaching Council [TC], 2011). In addition, three reviews of theresearch evidence on language and literacy commissioned by the NCCA havebeen published with a view to informing the imminent revision of the 1999curriculum: Literacy in Early Childhood and Primary Education (children aged3–8 Years) (Kennedy et al., 2012); Oral Language in Early Childhood and

bs_bs_banner

European Journal of Education, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2013DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12053

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Primary Education (children aged 3–8Years) (Shiel et al., 2012); and Towards anIntegrated Language Curriculum in Primary Education (children aged 3–12years) (O’Duibhir & Cummins, 2012).

This article examines the policy landscape in Ireland during this period ofchange and innovation. First, a brief overview of primary school education pro-vides a context for the changes. Second, the influences that have shaped thedirection of the recent policies in relation to literacy are examined. Third, theprocess of policy development and implementation is explored. Fourth, the keystrands of the new policies are outlined as they pertain to literacy at primary level.The article concludes with some reflections on the possibilities, challenges andimplications for schools and schooling.

Primary School Education in IrelandWhile compulsory education in Ireland begins at age six, in practice most childrenenter the primary school system in the September following their 4th birthday.Primary school lasts for eight years. All children learn the Irish language and someschools are Irish medium only (schools located in Gaeltacht areas andGaelscoileanna). Primary school teachers teach all 11 subjects in the nationalprimary curriculum launched by the NCCA/DES in 1999: Language (Irish,English), Mathematics, Social Environmental Scientific Education (History,Geography, Science), the Arts (Physical Education, Music, Art, Drama) and SocialPersonal Health Education.While the curriculum is centrally devised it is expectedthrough whole school and classroom planning that ‘the particular character of theschool [will] make a vital contribution to shaping the curriculum in classrooms’(www.ncca.ie).

With the introduction of the Early Childhood Care and Education Programmein 2009 a free preschool year was provided for all children aged from three yearsand two months. Also in 2009, the NCCA launched Aistear (an Irish wordmeaning journey), an early years framework designed for use in a range of settingsincluding children’s own homes, child-minding and day-care settings, as well asinfant classes in primary school. It adopts a broad definition of literacy:

. . . . more than having the ability to read and write. It is about helpingchildren to communicate with others and to make sense of the world. Itincludes oral and written language and other sign systems such as mathemat-ics, art, sound, pictures, Braille, sign language and music. Literacy alsoacknowledges the nature of information communication technology, andmany other forms of representation relevant to children including screen-based (electronic games, computers, the internet, television) (Aistear,NCCA, p. 56)

The critical role of play, interactions, relationships and language for young chi-ldren’s learning are given prominence in Aistear in four interconnected themes:Well-being, Identity and Belonging, Communicating, and Exploring and Think-ing. A new network of early childhood educators is trialling the themes within arange of early childhood settings and providing workshops to disseminate theframework. Use of the framework in primary schools is not yet mandated and whilethere are ‘explicit and implicit links with the primary school curriculum(www.ncce.ie), these would need to be made more transparent when the newLanguage curriculum currently in development is launched in 2014.

512 European Journal of Education, Part I


Trends in literacy achievement and literacy teaching have been tracked sincethe 70s through the National Assessments of Literacy administered at five-yearlyintervals while the quality of teaching and learning in classrooms is monitored bythe Inspectorate, a division within the Ministry of Education which conductsscheduled whole school evaluations (since 2006 these reports are published) andunannounced incidental inspections of teaching.The profession is regulated by theTeaching Council which is responsible for the registration of teachers, the settingof standards and codes of practice for the profession as well as setting policy onteacher education across the continuum.

Influences on the Development of the National Literacy andNumeracy StrategyThe development of the National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracyamong Children and Young People 2011–2020 (DES, 2011a) was shaped by arange of factors, including performance on international and national standardisedtests of literacy, the literacy achievement of children in disadvantaged contexts, thefindings from evaluations of education policy and curriculum implementation andthe relatively recent creation of the Teaching Council which began the develop-ment of a framework for teacher education across the continua from pre-service toinduction to continuous professional development.

Performance on International Assessments: PISA and PIRLS

Ireland has tended to perform well in PISA (international assessment of reading,mathematics and science for 15-year-olds conducted at three-year intervals) andprior to 2009 achieved an average score on reading literacy that placed it in thesignificantly higher bracket of achievement (Eivers, Shiel & Cunningham, 2007).However, in 2009, its ranking plunged from 5th to 17th place among countriesparticipating in 2009 and 2000. There was a uniform decline across levels and ahigh proportion of students (42%) reported that they never read for pleasure(Perkins et al., 2010).

The scale of the decline gave rise to extensive analysis of performance between2000 and 2009 (e.g. national analyses: Perkins et al., 2012; Cosgrove, 2011 andcommissioned international technical reports (LaRoche & Cartwright, 2010;Cartwright, 2011). As well as technical issues (e.g. the procedures used by theOECD to establish statistical linkages across PISA cycles), explanations for theunexpected change in performance include the increase in the education system inthe numbers of children for whom English is not their first language (0.9 to 3.6%)due to shifting demographic patterns in Ireland; the increase in the numbers ofstudents with special educational needs participating in PISA; the decrease in earlyschool leavers and the phenomenon of test fatigue, as fewer students completed alltest items despite having sufficient time to do so. In contrast, Ireland’s perfor-mance on the optional digital literacy component included in PISA 2009 wasconsiderably better. Of the 16 countries which took part, Ireland ranked 7th andachieved a significantly higher score than the OECD average (Cosgrove et al.,2011).Thus, it remains to be seen if the PISA 2009 results are indicative of a realdecline in standards.

Ireland took part in PIRLS (reading literacy assessment for children in Fourthclass) for the first time in 2011. While Ireland ranked 10th overall, onlyfive countries had a significantly higher mean score. Ireland took part in the

Eithne Kennedy 513


International Reading Literacy Study in 1991 and, while achievement is notdirectly comparable with PIRLS 2011, analysis indicates that performance ‘has notdeteriorated in the interim’ (Eivers & Clerkin, 2011, p. 37). Another source ofinformation that sheds light on standards at primary level is our performance onnational assessments.

Achievement Trends in National Assessments

Trends in achievement can be traced as far back as the 70s through the nationalassessments which up to recently were administered to children in First class(6–7 yrs.) and Fifth class (10–11 yrs.). Analysis indicates reading standards haveremained stable but a significant minority of children (approximately 10%) areperforming poorly (Eivers et al., 2005). In 2009, the target classes were changedto Second class (7–8 yrs.) and Sixth class (11–12 yrs.) and a new test (Eiverset al., 2010) consisting of four subscales (Retrieve, Infer, Interpret and Integrateinformation, and Examine and Evaluate information) was constructed. Perfor-mance across five new benchmark levels provides baseline data for comparisonagainst future performance: Below Level 1 (10%); Level 1 (25%); Level 2 (30%);Level 3 (25%); and Level 4 (10%). Children performed better on the lower-orderthan on the more challenging higher-order comprehension processes (e.g. 59%of Infer items were answered correctly by children in Second class, while inSixth class 54% answered the Interpret and Integrate items correctly). Genderdifferences in favour of girls were found to be statistically significant at Secondclass only.

On the surface, it may seem that national literacy standards at primary levelhave stagnated or plateaued. However, the fact that they have remained stabledespite the major demographic and policy changes noted earlier is important.Thatsaid, not all children at primary level are reaching their potential. This is particu-larly true for those in disadvantaged contexts despite the extensive range ofinitiatives and sustained emphasis government has put on policies to address theseinequities.

Literacy Achievement and Policy in Disadvantaged School Contexts

The magnitude of the literacy achievement gap was established through a large-scale baseline study (Eivers et al., 2004) which found that 27%–30% of children inFirst, Third and Sixth classes in disadvantaged schools were performing at orbelow the tenth percentile on a national standardised test of reading achievementcompared to about 10% nationally, while 3% were performing at the top end of thescale (above the 90th percentile) compared to about 10% nationally.

A previous study involving the evaluation of the impact of the Breaking theCycle (DES, 1996) initiative introduced to 33 of the most disadvantaged schoolsin Ireland found a higher proportion of children (38%–50%) performing belowthe 10th percentile and that scores declined as they progressed through school(Weir, 2003). This was a disappointing outcome given the range of benefitsprovided under the scheme including: reduced class sizes (15:1 in junior classes(4–8 yrs.); improved access to learning support; and provision of a Home SchoolCommunity Liaison teaching post aimed at strengthening home school links. Inone sense these findings are not surprising, as international research indicatesthat policies which concentrate on equalising funding and resources alone havebeen largely unsuccessful in closing the gap (Neuman & Celano, 2006; Puma



et al., 1997). Unless initiatives find ways to accelerate achievement as well asequalise resources for these children the gap will remain, as differences arealready apparent before children walk through the school door (Lee & Burkham,2002).

Such discouraging results prompted a reconsideration of policy which includeda review of the international research base on educational disadvantage (Archer &Weir, 2004) and studies examining school and classroom characteristics in disad-vantaged schools (Eivers et al., 2004; DESI, 2005a). Gaps and weaknesses iden-tified in relation to literacy included a need for: greater differentiation of teachingto meet the needs of all children, greater cohesion between classroom and specialeducation programmes, the use of a broader range of assessment tools and ofassessment data to inform planning and teaching, and the need for a moresystematic schoolwide approach to literacy. In response, the DEIS (DES, 2005)was introduced. For the first time in the Irish context, school-based professionaldevelopment in literacy was provided to disadvantaged schools in relation to FirstSteps (Education Department of Western Australia, 2013) and, schools wereencouraged to allocate a special education teacher to Reading Recovery training(Clay, 2002), an individualised early intervention programme. In return forincreased support and funding, schools had to set targets and develop three-yearplans outlining how they would set about achieving their targets, strengthenhome-school links and tackle poor attendance.

On the surface, this policy had many strengths, yet there were also problematicaspects (NESF, 2009; Kennedy, 2009). Building teacher expertise to a high levelis an important dimension of any change policy and indeed is a feature of high-performing countries on PISA. However, as the DEIS strategy focused on trainingteachers in specific programmes rather than on developing literacy expertise in abroad sense and addressing issues highlighted earlier, a subtle message was con-veyed that a particular programme could solve the achievement problem. Yet weknow that no one programme can meet the needs of all children (IRA, 2000).Furthermore, as there was only a small number of coordinators relative to thenumber of schools requiring support, the professional development provided in theDEIS strategy was probably not of sufficient intensity or frequency to bring abouta real change in schools, nor was it customised to their particular needs andcontext.

Nevertheless, the results of the first phase of the DEIS evaluation are somewhatencouraging (Weir et al., 2011). Relatively small statistically significant gains inachievement (less than one point gain on standardised tests) have reduced thenumbers performing below the 10th percentile from 28% to 25.6%, though this isstill a long distance from the national average. It underscores the complexities inbringing about a real change in achievement, demonstrating that programmes andresources are only part of the picture.

Reviews of Curriculum Implementation and Trends in Literacy Teaching

The overall Primary School Curriculum phased in over 6–7 years was for thefirst time in the Irish context accompanied by an extensive national programmeof in-service delivered to all teachers by the newly created Primary CurriculumSupport Programme [PCSP] comprised mainly of classroom teachers withexpertise in a given subject area seconded from their teaching posts. Givenits central role in all curricular areas, the revised English curriculum was the

Eithne Kennedy 515


first to be presented. Schools were grouped together and attended two days ofseminar presentations off-site and engaged in one school-based planning dayduring the school year. Additionally, in the years following curriculum imple-mentation, several other guidelines were issued to schools to support assessment(NCCA, 2007a) and inclusion (NCCA, 2007b, 2007c), though professionaldevelopment was not provided for these elements. The extent of curriculumimplementation and the quality of literacy teaching have been monitored on anon-going basis (DES, 2002; DESI, 2005a, 2005b, 2010; NCCA, 2005) whiledata collected through the national assessments mentioned earlier have all pro-vided insights into areas requiring further support and development in relationto literacy.

The DESI review (2005b) (data collection included semi-structured inter-views, observations of literacy teaching and the examination of school documentsand written plans for English) found that while ‘significant progress has beenachieved in the implementation of the English curriculum in three quarters of [all]schools,’ there remained scope for improvement in many areas, even in the schoolsthat were more advanced in terms of curriculum implementation. In addition tothe concerns highlighted earlier in relation to disadvantaged schools, the reportalso called for a greater emphasis on higher-order thinking skills, on teaching skillsin meaningful contexts, on the teaching of writing as a process and on theemotional and imaginative development of the child. Moreover, Eivers et al.’sfindings (2010) indicate that the time devoted to the teaching of literacy haddeclined since 2004 and that up to a quarter of pupils did not receive the minimumtime allocation for literacy.

One reason why the curriculum did not fully embed may have been due to thegeneric model of in-service adopted. Most of it was conducted off-site and deliv-ered to clusters of schools, meaning that it was not grounded in the daily com-plexities and realities of classrooms or tailored to each school context. Anindependent review found varying degrees of satisfaction with the in-service model(Murchan et al., 2005). Furthermore, by opting to present the curriculum accord-ing to subject areas, opportunities to highlight authentic curriculum integrationwere lost and the long period of implementation (7 years), led to a sense of‘overload’ (NCCA, 2010a) such that a gap year was introduced in 2003 to givesome breathing space to the pace of change.

Another reason was the structure of the literacy curriculum which was organ-ised across four strands (Receptiveness to Language, Competence and Confidencein using Language, Developing Cognitive Abilities through Language and Emo-tional and Imaginative Development through Language) and three strand units(Oral Language, Reading and Writing). Teachers reported difficulty in navigatingand using it for planning purposes and pointed to overlap and imprecise objectiveswhich were ‘woolly, not specific enough, very unclear and general and sometimesvague’ (NCCA, 2010b, p. 19).This resulted in a re-presentation of the curriculum(NCCA, 2010a) under the strands of Oral Language, Reading and Writing and‘glance cards’ and ‘wall charts’ were developed in collaboration with the PDST tomake the content more accessible.These were trialled with teachers and amendedaccording to feedback (NCCA, 2010b). However, useful as these amendmentswere, they were not deemed to go far enough, as evidenced by comments made byrespondents to the NCCA online survey consultation on curriculum overload(NCCA, 2010b, p. 32):



‘While it helps, the English curriculum remains overcrowded, dense, aca-demic and unhelpful in planning . . .I think the English Curriculum needs a complete overhaul. It is now out ofdate and no amount of swapping aims and names can fix it . . .The research that underpins this curriculum is difficult to ascertain. Essentialcomponents of reading are not evident throughout the reading strand e.g.fluency, vocabulary. . . .

While there were many strengths to the curriculum, including the emphasis on orallanguage; on multiple approaches to the teaching of reading; on a process approachto the teaching of writing; as well as a recognition of the reciprocal and interrelatednature of oral language, reading and writing, a number of gaps and weaknesseswere highlighted (Eivers et al., 2010; NCCA, 2010b, 2011; Kennedy et al., 2012).These included: the need for a theoretical framework and clearer specification ofthe components of essential literacy skills (the alphabetic principle, fluency,vocabulary, comprehension, writing); for clearer guidance on how to incorporateskills into meaningful contexts and balance attention to the foundational and thehigher-order skills; the need to focus attention on the teaching of reading com-prehension strategies, including flexible strategy usage in print and digital contexts;further guidance on the implementation of a process approach to writing; andfinally guidance on how to cultivate motivation, engagement and positive disposi-tions towards literacy.

These lacunae are also borne out when we consider teachers’ perspectives.They rated the teaching of writing as their highest priority in relation to their futureprofessional development needs (Eivers et al., 2010) and a large percentagereported that they were only somewhat confident or not confident in meeting theliteracy needs of lower-achieving students (62%), higher-achieving students(43%), teaching literacy across the curriculum (55%) and using computers toteach literacy (82%). While engaging in continuing professional development[CPD] is not yet obligatory, most teachers do participate in some form of CPDannually, though almost a third of children were taught by teachers who reportedthat they had not participated in any CPD in relation to literacy in the precedingthree years (Eivers et al., 2010).

Together with the data on national and international assessments of literacy,these findings also lent strength to the government’s perspective that a compre-hensive NLNS and a review of teacher education were needed.

The Process of Policy Development in IrelandWhile responsibility for policy in Ireland lies with the Minister for Education(supported by the DES, the NCCA and the TC) and is centrally devised in thelight of national and international research, a high level of consultation is taken.Consequently, policies are published in draft form to begin with and thenthrough the committee structures that are in place to support the work of theNCCA and the Teaching Council (committee composition is representative ofthe partners in education) and the time provided for public response, there is anopportunity to influence the final shape of the policy. For example, the Policyon the Continuum of Teacher Education (TC, 2011) was the culminationof a four-year consultation process which resulted in a framework for there-conceptualisation of teacher education committed to ‘innovation, integration

Eithne Kennedy 517


and improvement’ (TC, p. 8, 2011) in initial teacher education, induction andin-career development.

The Draft NLNS ignited an intense public debate on literacy standards, thequality of the education system, the fitness for purpose of the literacy curriculum,the breadth and depth of the overall national curriculum and the allocation ofinstructional time at primary level. This was evidenced by the voluminousresponses received by the DES (www.education.ie) from a wide spectrum ofsociety including individuals, schools, parents, community groups, colleges ofeducation and universities, business and industry, as well as from teacher unions,the National Adult Literacy Association and the Reading Association of Ireland.The DES also held meetings with a range of groups before publishing the finalversion of the strategy which coheres with the Teaching Council policy and has sixkey interrelated elements which aim to increase achievement nationally over thenext ten years. They are the focus of the following sub-sections.

Curriculum Revision

The first important element calls for a revision of the literacy curriculum by 2014.As noted above, the NCCA commissioned three research reports (www.ncca.ie) toinform this work. As space does not permit discussion of each one, highlights fromthe literacy report are presented here. In responding to the eight questions pro-vided by NCCA to guide the review, it drew on an extensive array of national andinternational research, including meta-analyses of literacy and large and small-scale research studies which utilized a broad range of methodologies andapproaches. Some key messages emerged.

First, the question of how literacy should be defined was examined. Researchhighlights the importance of espousing a broad vision of literacy including print,multimodal and digital and one which encompasses the cognitive, affective, socio-cultural, cultural-historical, creative and aesthetic dimensions of literacy whichdevelop across the lifespan of the individual. Considerable progress has been madein this regard in Ireland, since these principles are embodied in the definitionscontained in the Aistear framework and the recent NLNS.

Second, as research also highlights the need for a strong theoretical frameworkto underpin curriculum development, the review traced the major paradigm shiftsthat have occurred in the field from the early behaviourist perspectives to thecognitive to the socio-cultural and critical perspectives that dominate today. Itemphasises the developmental, constructivist and incremental nature of literacylearning, recognising that it is embedded within cultural and community practices.

Third, it examined the research on how best to support children’s literacydevelopment. Research in literacy has gone through turbulent times as researchershave sought to find the best pathways forward.The pendulum has swung first oneway then the other, with bottom up and top down models vying for position. Incontrast, research today espouses a balanced literacy framework which iscognitively challenging, balanced in terms of attention to lower and higher orderskills within authentic contexts, balanced in terms of assessment and balanced interms of attention to oral language, reading and writing which are recognised asreciprocal and mutually supportive processes.While recognising the importance ofconstrained skills such as phonics, spelling, grammar and punctuation, the reviewdraws particular attention to the research which also highlights the need for anearly concentration on unconstrained skills (Paris, 2005) such as vocabulary,



comprehension and writing which continue to develop across the lifespan andwhich can afford children the opportunity to develop empathy, critique and reflec-tion, key skills so important for later life.

Furthermore, the report draws attention to the content knowledge and peda-gogical skill set needed by teachers (Shulman, 1987) if they are to successfullyimplement such a framework and reviews the research base, developmental pat-terns and assessment tools for each of the essential literacy skills (alphabetics,vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, writing). Recognising that the affectivedimensions of literacy are key drivers of academic success (Baker & Wigfield,1999), research on how to create the conditions to foster positive dispositionstowards literacy and deep levels of motivation and engagement (Guthrie &Anderson, 1999; Turner & Paris, 1995) are presented. A major focus on theliterature around special education and individualised approaches to learningdifficulties was beyond the scope of the review. Rather, it focused on research-based practices that the classroom teacher could adopt to differentiate teaching forchildren with additional needs such as English as an additional language, andmeeting the challenges associated with low SES and children with mild generallearning difficulties. It also examined the role of literacy across the curriculum andits integration into other disciplines. Finally, noting that the nature of literacy andwhat it means to be literate are constantly changing, it recommended a dynamicapproach to curriculum review, with new findings to be incorporated and dissemi-nated on an on-going basis.

Following the launch of the three reports, an expert advisory group (compris-ing some of the authors of the reports and researchers and teacher educators acrossthe Early Childhood and Primary sector) was convened to support and advise theNCCA as it set about developing the Language curriculum. In line with theNLNS, the curriculum objectives will be framed as ‘learning outcomes’, statingexplicitly what children are required to learn at each stage of the primary cycle.Thework of the Expert Advisory group is also presented on a regular basis to the EarlyChildhood Primary and Language Committee which supports the NCCA in itson-going work and to the NCCA Council which approves the work of NCCA. Inaddition, NCCA has established collaborative networks with groups such as theAistear team and school-based literacy projects such as the Write to Read project(Kennedy, 2010, in press) to develop online research-based materials in print andmulti-modal form to support the new curriculum specification.

Helping Children with Additional Learning Needs Meet their Potential

A second element of the NLNS is meeting the needs of students with a range oflearning differences, including children for whom English is an additional lan-guage, children in DEIS schools, and children who experience literacy difficulties.This aspect of the strategy recognises that many schools are dealing with challengesarising from the impact of poverty, the recent downturn in the economy, as well asthe level of policy and demographic changes in Irish classrooms in the last decade(children for whom English is an additional language now make up 12% of theprimary population presenting with up to 200 varied languages in 60% of Irishschools). Other dimensions of the strategy such as the focus on curriculum revi-sion, school improvement, professional development for teachers and assessmentpractices are expected to help children with additional learning needs to meet theirpotential.

Eithne Kennedy 519


Improving Assessment and Evaluation

A third and controversial element of the strategy has been the increase in account-ability measures. For the first time in the Irish context, schools must report testscores to boards of management governing schools and to the DES for grades 2,4 and 6. National targets have also been set in relation to achievement on the newnational assessments outlined earlier: a reduction of 5% in the proportion ofchildren performing at or below level 1 and an increase of 5% in the proportion ator above level 3. In working towards these national targets, schools have been askedto review assessment data, to set targets and to include actions to realise them inschool improvement plans which are now required of all schools.

The Role of Parents

A fourth element recognises parents’ role as primary educators of their child andtheir unique contribution to their child’s physical, social, emotional, cognitive andlinguistic development.While all schools had reporting procedures in place prior tothe strategy (annual report cards and parent teacher meetings), they must nowprovide the results of standardised tests to parents in written form at least two weeksprior to the end of the school year so that parents may have the opportunity to seekfeedback. In co-operation with other government departments, the strategy alsoaims to develop and promote models of good practice that enable parents, families,communities, ECCE settings and schools to work together to support literacy andnumeracy acquisition. A particular emphasis is also put on streamlining transitionsfrom one setting to the next so that information regarding children’s learningtransfers from early childhood settings to primary and from there to post-primary.

Teacher Education

In recognition of the importance of the classroom teacher and early years’ prac-titioner to children’s literacy development, the fifth element of the NLNS proposeschanges to education programmes for teacher and for staff working in the earlyyears’ sector in order enhance their literacy expertise. The NLNS endorses thepolicy recommendation of the Teaching Council to extend the duration of teachereducation programmes (from three to four years on the B.Ed. degree whichcommenced in September 2012; and from 18 months to two years on the Post-Graduate Diploma by 2014). Also mandated is an increase in the time allocationfor literacy on these programmes so that student teachers can develop criticalcontent and pedagogical content knowledge in dimensions that are critical foreffective literacy instruction. Finally, the time spent on school-based teaching inclassrooms is increased and for the first time student teachers are required todemonstrate competency in the teaching of literacy during their teaching practice.Thereafter, newly qualified teachers will be supported by the expanded nationalinduction programme.

Another new dimension is the emphasis on continuing professional develop-ment which is seen as both a right and a responsibility (TC, 2011).The new policyproposes the development of a national framework informed by national andinternational research which should ‘identify ways in which professional develop-ment can be resourced and facilitated both within and outside school time, withina school and/or within a cluster of schools’ (TC, p. 19). Also for the first time in theIrish context, teachers will have to show evidence of having participated in at least



20 hours of accredited coursework in literacy every five years in order to maintainregistration with the Teaching Council. The new policy also highlights effectiveCPD as ‘constructivist in nature involving both formal and informal ways oflearning where emphasis is placed on reflection, joint problem solving, networkingand systematic sharing of expertise and experience’ (TC, 2011 p. 21). This islinked to the final pillar of the NLNS: school leadership and self-evaluation.

School Leadership

As leadership was one of the first elements of the NLNS targeted for action, thePDST designed and delivered in-service sessions to principals and deputy princi-pals on effective approaches to the teaching of literacy and on the use of assessmentto support differentiated literacy planning, teaching and learning during 2012–13.Furthermore, schools were issued with guidelines for self-evaluation (DESI, 2012)to support them in identifying areas for improvement and in developing three-yearaction plans.While some exemplars are included in relation to literacy, they are notdetailed enough to guide a comprehensive review of a school’s literacy programmeand practice, nor are they grounded in the current research base on effectiveliteracy instruction. It would be important that these guidelines are revised whenthe new language curriculum is introduced in 2014.

The emphasis on school self-evaluation coheres with the TC policy on profes-sional development which sees it as a culture of inquiry related to the unique needsof the school and teacher and core to the work of the principal. It also promotes‘school-based collaborative enquiry carried out by teachers in teams or groups andsupported by teacher education departments’ (TC, p. 21) as a valuable model forCPD and one which fosters partnership and collaboration across the system.Whilethese are clearly vital elements in the bid to improve literacy standards and thequality of literacy teaching and learning, how they will be operationalised has yetto be worked out.

Schools have also been issued with guidelines on prioritising time for literacy(DES, 2011b). These have proven controversial and are seen by some as a threatto the broad and balanced nature of the current primary school curriculum.However, the issue of time and how best to use it has been consistently raised asa constraint on teaching and learning (NCCA, 2005, 2008). How it will beresolved remains to be seen.

ConclusionOver the past decade, Ireland has experienced unprecedented levels of changesocially and economically, as evidenced by major demographic shifts and the riseand fall of the so called Celtic Tiger. On the education front, the new policies onteacher education and literacy have introduced far-reaching changes to teachereducation programmes and to schools and schooling. While these were promptedin part by Ireland’s unexpected PISA 2009 results, it remains to be seen howindicative these results are of a real decline in achievement, particularly given thebroad range of factors deemed to have impacted on performance and our higherattainment on the digital component of PISA 2009 and on PIRLS 2011. Theywere, however, also influenced by the critiques of the literacy curriculum and thefindings from the on-going monitoring and evaluation of schools and schoolingthat are a feature of the Irish education system and which have indicated room forimprovement in literacy planning, teaching and assessment.

Eithne Kennedy 521


While policy is centrally devised, development is also underpinned by reviewsof the research literature and characterised by a relatively high degree of consul-tation with key stakeholders represented on advisory committees and workinggroups as well as provision of opportunities for the wider public to comment. Onewould expect this to result in a high degree of consensus and compliance withpolicy, yet it does not guarantee success. Certainly, it creates an openness to changeamongst the teaching profession and a willingness to engage with it. However,when new policy involves ‘significant changes to current practices, new ideas maynot be viewed by teachers as desirable or ‘within reach’ of their existing approach’(Kennedy & Shiel, 2013, p. 486) and so how teachers are supported through thechange process is critical to success. Lessons from reviews of the implementationof the 1999 English curriculum indicate that a one-size-fits-all approach does notwork. NCCA has taken note and in recent years has been particularly proactive inconsulting with teachers providing many avenues for them to make their viewsknown through questionnaires, interviews, online fora and the creation of teachernetworks to trial new approaches and directions in curriculum and assessmentpractices. Thus, given its broad remit, NCCA has a key role to play in scaffoldingchange and the intention to present the new curriculum specification online withmultimodal resources and links to the theoretical and pedagogical research baserepresents a new and welcome departure in curriculum renewal and implementa-tion in Ireland.

The NLNS has also brought with it some controversial elements, includinggreater performativity and accountability. The requirements for schools to reportaggregated standardised test results to the DES, to set targets and devise schoolimprovement plans and to prioritise time for literacy have drawn some criticism.However, this level of accountability is light touch compared to the measures inplace in the UK where results are published and disaggregated and in the USwhere test results are also high stakes and can result in punitive measuresfor schools not making adequate yearly progress. Such high-stakes testing hasbeen associated with a range of negative impacts, including the narrowing ofcurriculum, teaching to the test, and the disempowerment and disaffection ofteachers (Hall, 2006; Duncan, 2012) and has not been successful in narrowingthe literacy achievement gap in those jurisdictions (DCSF, 2010; Gamse et al.,2008).

The issue of time is also a critical one, as how it is prioritised and used sendspowerful messages to children about what is valued in school. Of course, allocatingtime is one thing, but how it is used is another. Given the concerns that have beenraised around literacy teaching in Ireland highlighted earlier, it would need to beaccompanied by a building of teacher capacity to create research-based instruc-tional frameworks which are broad and balanced enough to not only raise achieve-ment, but to also motivate and engage children. Otherwise it could lead to areductionist approach to literacy as schools seek to raise standards in line with theNLNS. As we have seen, low levels of literacy are more likely to occur in DEISschools (schools located in low socio-economic status communities) and haveremained stubbornly resistant to intervention. Research also indicates that chil-dren in disadvantaged schools tend to receive qualitatively different teaching whichis often more heavily focused on basic skills and consequently less motivating andengaging. Hence, the issue of time and a meaning-oriented approach to instructionbecomes even more critical. It would also be important that the school evaluation



guidelines (DESI, 2012) are refined and adapted, particularly when the newlanguage curriculum is launched, in order to ensure that strengths and weaknessesare considered in relation to a broad definition of literacy, with appropriate atten-tion to both the affective and cognitive dimensions of literacy. Depending on howthey are operationalised the proposals for CPD contained in the TC policy (2011)certainly have the potential to make a major contribution to the level of innovationand change envisaged within the NLNS and in making the new language curricu-lum a reality in schools.

It remains to be seen if the new emphasis on literacy in Ireland will result innegative consequences or if it will succeed in its objectives to not only raisestandards, but also contribute to equity and access for all children regardless ofculture and socio-economic status. If it is resourced well, and is based on a broad andrich definition of literacy, on a research-based balanced curriculum framework andif teacher autonomy, creativity and decision-making are honoured, it has thepotential to make a real difference towards helping all children to realise theirpotential. Only time will tell.

Eithne Kennedy, St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, Dublin 9, Ireland, [email protected], www.spd.dcu.ie/main/academic/education/staff_details/kennedy_eithne.shtml

REFERENCES

ARCHER, P. & WEIR, S. (2004) Addressing Disadvantage: a review of the internationalliterature and strategy in Ireland. Report submitted to the Educational Disad-vantage Committee (Dublin, Educational Research Centre).

BAKER, L. & WIGFIELD, A. (1999) Dimensions of children’s motivation forreading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement,Reading Research Quarterly, 34, pp. 452–477.

CARTWRIGHT, F. (2011) PISA in Ireland, 2000–2009: factors affecting inferencesabout changes in student proficiency over time (Dublin, Educational ResearchCentre).

CLAY, M. (2002) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (2nd Ed)(Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann).

COSGROVE, J. (2011) Does Student Engagement Explain Performance on PISA?Comparisons of Response Patterns on the PISA Tests over Time (Dublin, Educa-tional Research Centre).

COSGROVE, J., PERKINS, R., MORAN, G. & SHIEL, G. (2011) Digital ReadingLiteracy in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA 2009): summary of results for Ireland (Dublin, Educational ResearchCentre).

DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES (DCSF, UK) (2010)Statistical First Release: attainment by pupil characteristics in England. www.dcsf.gov.uk

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (DES) (1996) Breaking the CycleProgram (Dublin, Stationery Office).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (DES) (2002) The 50 Schools Report(Dublin, Stationery Office).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (DES) (2005) Delivering Equality ofOpportunity in Schools (Dublin, Stationery Office).

Eithne Kennedy 523


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS (DES) (2011a) Circular 0056: initialsteps in the implementation of the national literacy and numeracy strategy(Dublin, DES).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS (DES) (2011b) Literacy and Numeracyfor Learning and Life: the national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy amongchildren and young people 2011–2020 (Dublin, DES).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE INSPECTORATE (DESI) (2005a)Literacy and Numeracy in Disadvantaged Schools (LANDS) (Dublin, StationeryOffice).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE INSPECTORATE (DESI) (2005b) Anevaluation of curriculum implementation in primary schools (Dublin, Station-ery Office).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS INSPECTORATE (DESI) (2010) Inci-dental inspection findings 2010:a report on the teaching and learning of English andMathematics in primary schools (Dublin, DES).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS INSPECTORATE (DESI) (2012) SchoolSelf-evaluation Guidelines (Dublin, DES).

DUNCAN, A. (2012, January 8) After 10 years, it’s time for a new NCLB.www.ed.gov/blog/2012/01/after-10-years-it%e2%80%99s-time-for-a-new-nclb/

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (2013) First Steps.3rd edition. http://det.wa.edu.au/stepsresources/detcms/navigation/first-steps-literacy/?oid=MultiPartArticle-id-13602018

EIVERS, E. & CLERKIN, A. (2011) PIRLS and TIMSS 2011: Reading, Mathematicsand Science outcomes for Ireland (Dublin, Educational Research Centre).

EIVERS, E., CLOSE, S., SHIEL, G., MILLAR, D., CLERKIN, A., GILLEECE, L. &KINIRY, J. (2010) The 2009 National Assessments of Mathematics and EnglishReading (Dublin, Stationery Office). www.erc.ie/documents/na2009_report.pdf

EIVERS, E., SHIEL, G. & CUNNINGHAM, R. (2007) Ready forTomorrow’sWorld?TheCompetencies of Ireland’s 15 year olds in PISA 2006 (Dublin, EducationalResearch Centre).

EIVERS, E., SHIEL, G., PERKINS, R. & COSGROVE, J. (2005) The 2004 NationalAssessment of English Reading (Dublin, Educational Research Centre).

EIVERS, E., SHIEL, G. & SHORTT, S. (2004) Reading Literacy in DisadvantagedPrimary Schools (Dublin, Educational Research Centre).

EUROPEAN UNION (2012) Act now! European Commission Final Report: EU HighLevel Group of Experts on Literacy (Luxembourg, Publications Office of theEuropean Union).

GAMSE, B. C., BLOOM, H. S., KEMPLE, J. J. & JACOB, R. T. (2008) Reading FirstImpact Study: Interim report (NCEE 2008-4016) (Washington, DC, USDepartment of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation andRegional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences).

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND (2004) Education for Persons with Special EducationalNeeds Act (Dublin, Government publications).

GUTHRIE, J. T. & ANDERSON, E. (1999) Engagement in reading: processes ofmotivated, strategic, knowledgeable, social readers, in: J. T. GUTHRIE &D. E. ALVERMANN (Eds) Engaged Reading: processes, practices, and policy impli-cations (pp. 17–45) (New York, Teachers College Press).



HALL, K. (2006) How children learn to read and how phonics helps, in: M. LEWIS

& S. ELLIS (Eds) Phonics, Practice, Research, Policy (pp. 9–22) (London,Chapman).

INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION (IRA) (2000) Using Multiple Methods ofBeginning Reading Instruction: a position statement of the International ReadingAssociation (Newark, DE, International Reading Association).

KENNEDY, E. (2009) Literacy in Disadvantaged Schools: policy and implementationissues: Commissioned paper. In: National Economic and Social Forum: Childliteracy and social inclusion: Implementation issues. Supplementary Report,Research series 6 (pp. 45–94). (Dublin, National Economic and SocialForum).

KENNEDY, E. (2010) Improving literacy achievement in a high-poverty school:Empowering teachers through professional development, Reading ResearchQuarterly, 45, pp. 384–387.

KENNEDY, E. (In press) Raising Literacy Achievement in High-poverty Schools:an evidence-based approach (Research in Education Series, New York,Routledge).

KENNEDY, E., DUNPHY, E., DWYER, B., O’CONNOR, M., HAYES, G.,MCPHILLIPS, T., MARSH, J. & SHIEL, G. (2012) Literacy in Early Childhoodand Primary Education (children aged 3–8 years) (Dublin, NCCA).

KENNEDY, E. & SHIEL, G. (2013) Raising literacy achievement levels throughcollaborative professional development, in: K. HALL, T. CREMIN, B. COMBER

& L. MOLL (Eds) International Handbook of Research in Children’s Literacy,Learning and Culture (pp. 484–498) (Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell).

LAROCHE, S. & CARTWRIGHT, F. (2010) Independent Review of the 2009 PISAResults for Ireland. Report prepared for the Educational Research Centre at therequest of the Department of Education and Skills (Dublin, Department ofEducation and Skills).

LEE, V. & BURKHAM, D. (2002) Inequality at the Starting Gate (Washington, DC,Economic Policy Institute).

MURCHAN, D., LOXLEY, A., JOHNSON, K. QUINN, M. & FITZGERALD, H. (2005)Evaluation of the Primary Curriculum Support Programme (PCSP) (Dublin,Education Department, University of Dublin, Trinity College).

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT (NCCA) (2005).Primary Curriclum Review: Phase 1 (English, Visual Arts, Mathematics).http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Early_Childhood_and_Primary_Education/Primary_School_Curriculum/Primary_Curriculum_Review_PCR_/

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT (NCCA) (2007a)Assessment in the Primary School: guidelines for schools (Dublin, NCCA).

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT (NCCA) (2007b)Guidelines for Teachers of Students with General Learning Disabilities (Dublin,NCCA).

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT (NCCA) (2007c)Exceptionally Able Students: draft guidelines for teachers. www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Inclusion/Special_Educational_%20Needs/Exceptionally_Able_Students/

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT (NCCA) (2008)Primary Curriculum Review: phase 2 (Gaeilge, Science, SPHE). www.ncca.ie/

Eithne Kennedy 525


en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Early_Childhood_and_Primary_Education/Primary_School_Curriculum/Primary_Curriculum_Review_PCR_/

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT (NCCA) (2009)Aistear: the framework for early learning (Dublin, NCCA).

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT (NCCA) (2010a)Curriculum overload in primary schools: An overview of national and inter-national experiences. Dublin, Author.

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT. (NCCA) (2010b)Curriculum Overload in Primary Schools: experiences and reflections fromthelearning site (Dublin, NCCA).

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT (NCCA) (2011)Better Literacy and Numeracy for Children andYoung People: NCCA submission,February 2011. (Dublin, NCCA).

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT/DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (NCCA/DES) (1999) Primary School Curriculum(Dublin, Stationery Office).

NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FORUM (NESF) (2009) Child Literacy andSocial Inclusion: implementation issues (Dublin, NESF).

NEUMAN, S. B. & CELANO, D. (2006) The knowledge gap: implications of level-ling the playing field for low-income and middle-income children, ReadingResearch Quarterly, 41, pp. 176–201

O’DUIBHIR, P. & CUMMINS, J. (2012) Towards an Integrated LanguageCurriculum in Primary Education (children aged 3–12 years) (Dublin,NCCA).

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD)(2010) PISA 2009 Results: overcoming social background — equity in learningopportunities and outcomes (Vol. 2) (Paris, OECD).

PARIS, S. G. (2005) Reinterpreting the development of reading skills, ReadingResearch Quarterly, 40, pp. 184–202.

PERKINS, R., COSGROVE, J., MORAN, G. & SHIEL, G. (2012) PISA 2009: results forIreland and changes since 2000 (Dublin, Educational Research Centre).www.erc.ie/documents/pisa2009main_nationalreport.pdf

PERKINS, R., MORAN, G., COSGROVE, J. & SHIEL, G. (2010) PISA 2009: theperformance and progress of 15-year-olds in Ireland (Dublin, EducationalResearch Centre).

PUMA, M., J., KARWEIT, N., PRICE, C., RICCIUTI, A., THOMPSON, W. &VADEN-KIERNAN, M. (1997) Prospects: final report on student outcomes (Title 1)(Washington, DC, US Department of Education, Planning and EvaluationService).

SHIEL, G., CREGAN, A., MCGOUGH, A., & ARCHER, A. (2012) Oral Language inEarly Childhood and Primary Education (Children aged 3–8 Years) (Dublin,NCCA).

SHULMAN, L. S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform,Harvard Educational Review, 57, pp. 1–22.

TEACHING COUNCIL (2011) Policy on the Continuum of Teacher Education(Maynooth, Ireland, Teaching Council). www.teachingcouncil.ie/_fileupload/Teacher%20Education/FINAL%20TC_Policy_Paper_SP.pdf

TURNER, J. & PARIS, S. G. (1995) How literacy tasks influence children’s moti-vation for literacy, The Reading Teacher, 48, pp. 662–675.



WEIR, S. (2003) The Evaluation of Breaking the Cycle: a follow-up of the achievementsof 6th class pupils in urban schools in 2003. Report to the Department ofEducation and Science.

WEIR, S., ARCHER, P., O’FLAHERTY, A. & GILLEECE, L. (2011) A Report on theFirst Phase of the Evaluation of DEIS. Report to the Department of Educa-tion and Science (Dublin, Educational Research Centre).

Eithne Kennedy 527


Documents

Literacy Policy in Ireland