Witnesses giving evidence from within the precincts of Leinster House are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentation they make to this committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of any identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue to their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside the House or an official of the House either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

The item on the agenda for today's meeting is an update on the new primary school curriculum. From the Department of Education and Youth, I welcome Ms Aoife Conduit, assistant secretary general with responsibility for curriculum, assessment, teacher professional learning and early years; and Mr. Mark Bohan, principal officer, curriculum and assessment policy, primary. From the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, I welcome Ms Arlene Forster, chief executive; Dr. Patrick Sullivan, deputy chief executive; and Dr. Jacinta Regan, director, curriculum and assessment. From Oide, I welcome Ms Sharon Mooney, deputy director. I call on Ms Conduit to make her opening statements.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for inviting the Department of Education and Youth to update the committee on the redeveloped primary curriculum. I am the assistant secretary general with responsibility for curriculum, assessment, teacher professional learning and early years. I am joined here by my colleague, Mr. Mark Bohan, principal officer in the curriculum and assessment policy primary unit.

The redeveloped primary curriculum specifications were launched last September and represent a significant moment in the teaching of primary school children. This marked a key milestone in an evolving process that started over 14 years ago, building on the strengths of the 1999 curriculum while responding to the needs of children growing up in today’s world. Previous milestones have been the publication of the primary language curriculum in 2019 and the primary curriculum framework and the redeveloped primary mathematics curriculum and the provision of related supports to teachers in 2023. These achievements follow a huge amount of work by the NCCA, the Department and its support services in conjunction with school leaders, teachers, parents, children, researchers and stakeholders across the education sector.

The redeveloped curriculum is designed to support high-quality, inclusive and evidence-based learning for all children. It recognises the right of every child to thrive and make progress across all areas of learning and development. It views teachers as skilled professionals who play a central role in children’s learning from early childhood through primary and special education and into post-primary education. It is closely aligned with key Department policies and strategies that create a unified approach to improving education for our primary pupils and, when combined, enhance learning and teaching, promote pupil well-being and develop key skills such as critical thinking, creativity and problem solving.

The Department acknowledges the need for ongoing support to help schools to enact the redeveloped primary curriculum. The enactment will be a gradual and well-supported process lasting at least six years. This acknowledges that time is essential to ensure that learning and change take place at a pace that allows sustainable transformation across the system. To assist teachers and school leaders in adapting to these changes, the Department will provide sustained professional learning through Oide and the National Council for Special Education, NCSE. Post-Primary Languages Ireland will provide upskilling and supports around the introduction of modern foreign languages. Additionally, online resources will offer practical guidance and materials for teachers and school leaders. Funding is being provided to purchase the physical resources needed. There is ongoing engagement with key stakeholders as we proceed through the enactment process.

Throughout the coming years, there will be much collaboration between these bodies and schools and their teachers and throughout the journey. We should all be aware of a number of key messages supporting the successful enactment of the redeveloped curriculum. As set out by the Minister at the launch, the redeveloped curriculum is about more than just curriculum areas and subjects. It is about sparking joy in learning. Most of all, we want children to have fun, discover through play and be creative. This will help every child to thrive and reach his or her full potential. It is for all children in primary and special schools. Primary education is uniquely placed to build on children’s early learning experiences and support their progression through primary and into post-primary education. It equips them with the knowledge, skills and dispositions for their future lives.

The enactment of the redeveloped curriculum is a collective journey of learning and change for everyone. This journey builds on existing knowledge and practice. Through collaboration, sharing and dialogue, deeper understandings of the curriculum will develop to support meaningful enactment. Successful curriculum enactment is a whole-system responsibility that involves every individual in the education community. Teachers, school leaders, children, families, initial teacher education providers, support services, inspectors and education authorities all have important contributions to make in realising the curriculum’s vision. The enactment of the redeveloped curriculum offers everyone an opportunity to embrace a renewed sense of agency and ownership of the curriculum’s vision. Cultivating agency among teachers and children means enabling thoughtful choices that bring the curriculum to life in diverse contexts.

This curriculum is about giving every child the tools he or she needs to succeed not just in school but also in life. It is about nurturing their talents, supporting their well-being and helping them to develop as confident learners and active citizens in a changing world. The increased focus on language skills and STEM will give children the tools to communicate with each other and have the curiosity, creativity and solutions to shape the world around them. My colleagues and I are very happy to answer any questions committee members may have.

Is mian liom buíochas a ghabháil le comhaltaí an choiste as an deis seo labhairt faoi churaclaim athfhorbartha na bunscoile mar phríomhfheidhmeannach na Comhairle Náisiúnta Curaclaim agus Measúnachta. Tá an Dr. Patrick Sullivan, leas-phríomhfheidhmeannach; agus an Dr. Jacinta Regan, stiúrthóir churaclaim agus measúnachta; in éineacht liom. The NCCA is the statutory body that advises the Minister for Education and Youth on curriculum and assessment for early childhood education, primary and post-primary schools. The council’s approach to curriculum development places a strong emphasis on research, close work with schools and settings, public consultation and deliberation.

In September 2025, the Minister launched the redeveloped primary school curriculum. This was a landmark moment in primary education. Much has changed since the previous curriculum was introduced in 1999. Children are growing up in a world shaped by climate change, rapid advances in digital and artificial intelligence technologies, shifting demographics and the legacy of the pandemic.

At the same time, research gives us a clearer understanding of how children learn and develop and there is stronger recognition of children’s voices and agency in their learning. The redevelopment also offered the opportunity to strengthen connections across the system, building on the updated version of Aistear: the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework and supporting progression into the junior cycle. The 2023 primary curriculum framework sets out a clear and ambitious vision for children’s learning, aiming to provide a strong foundation for every child to thrive and flourish. The redeveloped curriculum includes seven key competencies, with learning organised across five curriculum areas. These include arts education, including art, drama and music; language, including Irish, English and, from stages three and four, modern foreign languages; social and environmental education, including history, geography and learning connected to religions, beliefs and world views; science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, education; and well-being, which includes social, personal and health education, SPHE, and physical education, PE. The redeveloped curriculum reflects the shared values, cultural and linguistic heritage and lived experiences of children growing up in Ireland today. It emphasises inquiry, creativity, problemsolving and digital and critical literacy and offers greater time for PE and SPHE. It also provides clearer guidance on inclusive approaches to learning, teaching and assessment to support all children, including those with special educational needs in mainstream and special schools.

The development of this curriculum has been a significant endeavour. It is the result of thousands of contributions from teachers, school leaders, parents, children and the wider public. The NCCA took deliberate steps to include voices seldom heard in national consultations, including minority ethnic communities and families experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Comprising 60 schools, the schools forum has also worked alongside us in a sustained and meaningful way since 2018. With the curriculum now published, the NCCA’s focus is on supporting schools as they begin to work with it. We are developing online toolkits, examples of learning and planning and assessment guidance. We have also published materials about the curriculum specifically for parents and children. This work is carried out in close partnership with the Department, the inspectorate, Oide, the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, Post-Primary Languages Ireland, PPLI, and wider education partners. Our shared goal is to ensure that the curriculum has a positive and lasting impact on all children’s learning and well-being.

The redeveloped primary school curriculum is underpinned by an affirming and futurefocused vision for Irish primary education. It reflects our shared commitment to support all children to realise their full potential and our belief in the professionalism of teachers and school leaders. With sustained collaboration and support, the redeveloped curriculum has the potential to support high-quality learning, teaching and assessment and strengthen equity and inclusion across our system for years to come.

I thank committee members. We look forward to their questions.

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to appear before them today. I am the deputy director of Oide. I am delighted to speak to the committee about our work and outline, in the short time available, the professional learning we will be providing to support the enactment of the redeveloped primary school curriculum over the coming years.

Oide, as the national support service for school leaders and teachers, works with over 3,200 schools and 36,000 teachers, so we are right at the heart of curriculum enactment. Oide works as part of an ecosystem of partners. We have worked with the NCCA on each of the subject development groups and we collaborate closely with the NCSE to support its work with special schools to ensure parity of provision. The introduction of modern foreign languages at primary level has seen us work in tandem with the PPLI to plan for a robust model of support for teachers and school leaders.

All professional learning created by Oide undergoes a robust design and quality assurance process involving detailed consultation with practising teachers and school leaders, education partners and the Department of Education and Youth inspectorate. As part of this process, Oide contextualises professional learning for Irish-medium and Gaeltacht school contexts. Professional learning is facilitated through the medium of Gaeilge for these school contexts contemporaneously with English-medium primary level education, PLE, roll-out. Oide’s work in the years ahead for primary curriculum framework will build on the foundations of, and the extensive insights gained from, the professional learning provided for the primary language curriculum and, most recently, the comprehensive suite of supports for the primary maths curriculum.

Oide aims to provide opportunities for teachers and school leaders to reflect on what is already working well in their unique contexts and build on their existing strengths to move forward in alignment with the vision for learning, teaching and assessment, as outlined in the primary curriculum framework. We acknowledge the critical and vital role of school principals. Therefore, a comprehensive suite of supports will be provided by Oide for school leaders. This support commenced in June of last year with the launch of a campaign to all primary and special schools outlining the vision and roadmap of professional learning in the coming years. Oide will provide both online and in-person professional learning on the strategic leadership of curriculum change and on leading the introduction of modern foreign languages, MFL, as part of the redeveloped language curriculum. This will provide time for the principal and other curriculum leaders in the school to explore how best to enact the specification in their contexts.

For all teachers, on 19 January, Oide commenced the programme of professional learning for primary schools with a facilitated whole-day experience designed to provide valuable time and space for teachers and principals together to build a strong foundation for and understanding of the primary curriculum framework by exploring the vision, principles and key competencies. The design of this day allows vital time for staff to engage in professional conversations with their colleagues on how they will respond to the primary curriculum framework based on the unique contexts of their schools. This professional learning experience necessitated the closure of schools and will be further complemented by online and collaborative events in the months and years ahead. All primary schools have been notified of the arrangements for their whole-school closure days.

The programme of supports for 2026-27 will build on the professional learning provided this year. Oide will develop professional learning in response to the emerging needs of teachers following the introductory year of support. We will have a full day of professional learning dedicated to modern foreign languages and our role will focus solely on providing professional learning for whole staff cohorts on language and cultural awareness in relation to the integration of modern foreign languages into the language specification. This day will look at whole-school approaches to language awareness and explore existing effective practices in language learning in English and Gaeilge as a foundation to deepen children’s linguistic and cultural awareness.

Once the first phase of professional learning for the primary curriculum framework has been experienced by schools, Oide will begin to focus on support for the enactment of the five curriculum areas. Once again, schools will be afforded the opportunity to exercise autonomy in how they integrate the curriculum specifications into established practice. In recognition of the importance of supporting teachers in practice, schools will be facilitated to access professional learning in one of their selected areas annually with support from Oide.

This is a short statement and it is difficult to convey the full range and nature of professional learning experiences Oide will provide to support teachers and principals as they enact the primary curriculum framework and specifications. I hope I have demonstrated that our programmes will build on existing strengths of teachers and their practice in our primary schools and the insights we have gained through consultation with teachers and principals. As the programme of supports is rolled out, we will continue to listen to all participants in our professional learning education and I assure the committee that Oide will be responsive to the emerging needs of teachers and school leaders.

I thank committee members for listening and welcome their questions.

I thank Ms Mooney, Ms Forster and Ms Conduit. I now call members to ask questions.

I thank the witnesses for joining us. I read with interest their opening statements and the curriculum document. One of the things that jumped out at me as being positive or beneficial is the introduction of foreign languages. Learning a language teaches children more skills than just the language and it is important. It raised two questions for me. The first relates to our national language, Irish. How are we modernising that as part of the curriculum review?

What are we doing to help children learn our national language better in our schools?

My second question is slightly off topic, and the Leas-Chathaoirleach may stop me, but when we look at the admissions policy and subject choices in secondary schools, a foreign language is not always mandatory in every school. I saw this in my town of Trim recently when my niece was applying to all the different schools. Is that what we are moving towards? If we are introducing foreign languages in primary schools now, and we recognise how important they are, is a foreign language going to be mandatory in secondary schools? I am not sure who those questions are for or who might want to respond first.

I will pick up on Irish in primary schools first. Ms Conduit referred to the work on the redevelopment beginning 16 years ago, back before 2012. The language part of the curriculum was the first part to be reviewed and redeveloped. It was a significant piece of work that took place between 2012 and 2019.

For the first time in the case of Irish, we have an integrated primary language curriculum, which, as the Deputy referred to, now includes modern foreign languages. What is unique about this integrated language curriculum is that we have the same structure for English and Irish, and now for modern foreign languages. In the redevelopment of Irish in particular, there is a very strong focus on oral language skills, the communicative approach and teaching Irish for communicative purposes.

To pick up on the modern foreign languages aspect briefly, as part of the redeveloped primary curriculum, the focus in the first two years, which are the third and fourth classes, is very much on language awareness. It is in fifth and sixth classes that children begin to learn a language itself. There is complete choice at the school level and schools do not have to choose a modern foreign language to connect in with the local post-primary school. There is no work afoot to move towards making modern foreign languages compulsory at junior cycle.

This highlights the rationale for introducing modern foreign languages as part of the redeveloped primary curriculum. While on the one hand, pupils have an opportunity to learn a language, it is also very much about drawing their attention to similarities across languages, appreciating language, and seeing themselves as language learners of multiple languages. That is very much the emphasis in the redeveloped curriculum. I ask Dr. Regan if she would like to add to that.

I think Ms Forster has covered most of it. Deputy Dempsey asked in particular about the Irish language and what is being done there. We have positive research in the Irish context where children have engaged with modern foreign languages. There has been a very positive attitudinal shift towards learning the Irish language because children have begun to see it as a language with a purpose for communication, as opposed to perhaps being just a subject. That was research undertaken by Deirdre Kirwin and David Little that took place in Scoil Bhríde. It speaks to the opportunities here in relation to language in general.

Ms Mooney spoke about the role of the principal. I think we will all agree that the workload of principals is only going one way - it is increasing. In my constituency, we still have a lot of rural schools with teaching principals, although that is probably not the official term for them. We need to move away from that because the workload of principals is so heavy now with administration. We have introduced fantastic schemes, such as free schoolbooks and hot school meals, but the burden falls on the principals. While this might be rolled out and the work is top-heavy at the beginning, it will evolving and change. With a bit of latitude, are there any plans to change the role of the principal as teaching principals?

I could speak to the professional learning, but that is more a question for Ms Conduit.

That is more a question for the Department. We are very aware of the issues and challenges facing principals. In the last number of years, the Department has, as resources have allowed, done everything we can to alleviate that. All teaching principals, for example, have one day of non-teaching. That was introduced a few years ago to help them balance their workload in that respect. We have also increased the number of middle management posts in schools, including deputy principal roles, and posts of responsibility have been restored in the primary school system after the cuts that happened earlier in the century. We are doing what we can.

In terms of a future strategy for schools, we are looking at leadership and governance challenges and all that. A pilot is running in schools looking at the possibility of administrative assistants for principals. That is an action research project that is being supported as well, and we will look at the findings from it.

I dtús báire, cuirim ar an taifead oifigiúil gur náireach é go bhfuil laghdú mór tar éis teacht ar mhúineadh na Gaeilge sa churaclam bunscoile. Bhí an Ghaeilge i gcónaí nascaithe tríd an gcuraclam. Bhí béim i gcónaí uirthi tríd an Ghaeilge ó bhéal. Mar a deir Dr. Regan, tá athrú meoin dearfach leis an teanga agus ní chóir go mbeadh laghdú ar an nGaeilge sa churaclam go háirithe nuair atáimid i bpobal labhartha na Gaeilge ag déanamh an-iarracht an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn ón luathoideachas ar aghaidh go dtí an tríú leibhéal agus ansin an sprioc 20% sin d’oibrithe san earnáil phoiblí a bhaint amach in 2030. Ní fheicim aon chiall leis sin agus ní aontaím leis.

I am a primary school teacher. I am just over a year out of teaching. Teachers do a fantastic job. I spoke to many in anticipation of this meeting. They are happy with the curriculum. The one recurring theme was the teaching of modern foreign languages. Teachers are being sent courses to do in their own time. Some of them have not spoken a foreign language in 20 or 30 years, since they left school themselves. They are very worried about implementing this to a high standard. Another issue they are worried about is STEM and coding. They are worried they are not prepared to teach these subjects.

Will there be increased time for teachers to upskill? It was mentioned that there would be one day of training. That is not enough for someone teaching a foreign language who has not spoken it. Perhaps the witnesses could speak to that ar dtús and then I will come back with another question.

Ms Mooney might have the detail on the language supports and other subjects.

Regarding the support that will be provided, Post-Primary Languages Ireland, PPLI, is responsible for the language upskilling of all teachers and school leaders who will be teaching this modern foreign language. It is important to note that we are at the very beginning of this. This is the introductory year. It is not that anybody will be expected to teach a modern foreign language after a one-day professional learning experience with Oide. That is not the intention. This is very gradual and a slow-paced curriculum development. There will be a whole-school closure and a full day of professional learning for teachers, which will be about language awareness. Another day will follow that in the second year and it will be for school teachers and school leaders. School leaders will also have a specific full day for themselves to work with other school principals and speak about how they will integrate modern foreign languages into their own schools.

It is important to note that this primary language curriculum and the support Oide will be providing looks at this in an integrated way to support children’s language very broadly. It is building a plurilingual approach in schools. We are working with PPLI, but our work is significantly in the language awareness area rather than that of language upskilling, but there is time for this. We have reassured teachers who have contacted us that this is a phased approach, so they are not thinking they will be teaching a modern foreign language next year.

My school was part of a pilot scheme last year. We taught Spanish to rang a sé. I had sixth class. We happened to be very lucky because the junior infant teacher could speak Spanish, so when the naíonáin bheaga went home, she came up and took my class. I sat there with them. There is no way I could do that. We were very lucky to have her.

We are now in our second year of it and the other teachers in the school are thinking they would not be able to do that. They are looking ahead to which languages are being offered in the secondary schools in the catchment area.

Do they have to provide them?

The Deputy is referring to the PPLI's Languages Connect programme. Thousands of schools have participated in that and continue to participate. That will certainly be beneficial. There is not really a connection with the modern foreign languages that a feeder school provides at secondary school level. This is about building language competency and language awareness. It is at an introductory level. The majority of our teachers are coming through teacher training having studied a modern foreign language, but that would not be the focus at the moment. I take the Deputy's points.

On being apprehensive about what is expected here, to be clear, the learning outcomes are based on pre-A1 of the common European framework of reference for language, which is very basic. If we were to compare it with the Irish in English-medium schools, we are talking about the level at junior infants. It includes simple terms, simple phrases and songs. We were careful about pitching this appropriately so that the ask was not over the top for our teachers, because the system will need time.

It is a fantastic initiative because if you have one language, you can get another language more easily. I want to see an Gaeilge growing in our country.

Assessment in schools does not reflect this new approach of learning through play. It is not new, but there is more emphasis on learning through play. Standardised testing is not working and does not reflect the new approaches. I have run out of time so I might get to that if we get another round.

I thank the witnesses. Could someone give me a high-level overview of the phased introduction of this? What is the phasing, what are school communities to expect and what is the timeline for it?

The schools are in their introductory year. They are engaging with Oide with their first professional learning full day, which is primary curriculum framework, PCF, day one. That will close in March and then we will roll into another full day of professional learning. That is to allow schools time and space to explore the curriculum and look at the key principles, key competencies and the vision and rationale for change. It is to give them that valuable time together. When we look to next year, schools and school leaders will commence a detailed programme around leading and managing curriculum change. They will look at how they will lead this in broad terms in their school and at the time and phasing that they will choose in their own unique context. There will be a full day of professional learning just for the school leader on how he or she will lead modern foreign language, again to give time to address some of the questions that have been raised here this morning.

When Ms Mooney says "school leader", does she mean the principal?

It could be the school principal or another member of the school leadership team. Many schools will be invited to bring more than one school leader, that is, the principal plus usually one other, and maybe up to three. It varies based on the professional learning experience. Schools will also, in the next couple of months, be asked to consider selecting a number of the curriculum specifications, of which there are five, into which they would like to take the next step. Oide will provide some professional learning in the next school year. That will continue annually, with schools selecting another curriculum area they feel will complement or benefit the pupils in the school

Is the expectation that every school over the period of five years, starting the year after next, will take on one of those five areas, implement it, move on and take another one? It will depend on the school's own call about which it prioritises and the sequence of that. The expectation is that in seven years, every school will be operating entirely on this new curriculum.

That is the plan. Within the first three years, well-being is the area specified in the curriculum that needs to be implemented as a priority. That makes a lot of sense. Well-being needs to be one of the first three areas, so in the next three years, we will provide all of the professional learning that needs to be supported to start the enactment of the well-being curriculum.

How does that work for Oide? Well-being is to be implemented within the first three years, but every other school is picking between priorities. What is Oide's capacity to support teachers and schools that are moving at different paces and specifically in different areas of prioritisation? Does Oide or the Department have the capacity to support schools in this transition? Is Oide being resourced for it?

I can speak to that initially and if Ms Conduit wants to speak, that is fine. What happens for Oide over the next couple of months, which is already starting, is that we are doing a lot of internal logistical planning and upskilling all of our teams. If we have 3,000 or so schools, we need to be able to support 900 to 1,000 annually in well-being, for example, so I am resourcing the team appropriately and upskilling all of the professional learning leaders in Oide. That is all the seconded teachers who work with us. We are confident that we can support the number of schools. Of course, there will be parameters that Oide will have to set from a planning perspective to ensure we can provide professional learning in each of these curriculum specifications. We will communicate clearly with schools in the next couple of weeks, and possibly into the next month, about how that will happen and how that will be carried out, but it will be transparent and schools will be asked to select more than one area. Every school will be provided with professional learning in a curriculum area in the coming school year, starting from-----

Does Oide get additional staff for managing this process?

I might come in there. Making sure this enactment is successful is a departmental priority. To give the Deputy a sense, €8.5 million has gone into the teacher professional learning aspect with Oide for 2025, with a further €2.5 million to deliver supports for principals and leadership teams in schools. Oide has been planning this in conjunction with the NCCA and us. There has been quite a lead-in period to make sure the capacity is there to support teachers and leaders in the way that they need. It is an evolving landscape.

I presume it is kept under review

That is right. Ms Mooney referred earlier to Oide being responsive as the needs of schools emerge as the enactment is rolled out. That, again, is a strength of having this phased implementation. There is a certain amount of flexibility for schools so they can play to their strengths. They can plan which aspects and which curriculum areas they want to focus on as they move forward. It has been designed to help and support schools, teachers and children to manage this enactment.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. I was at the launch of the new curriculum in September. It was welcomed when we discussed it in this chamber afterwards. I liked the idea that with a new curriculum after 25 years, the idea would not be to stick with it for another 25 years. It is a dynamic curriculum and the organisations will be able to adapt, adjust and change it according to the needs. I do not know if the witnesses are familiar with the work of this committee in recent times. We have had extensive sittings on hot school meals. Much of the feedback that we are getting from schools is that the students have not had sufficient time to eat the meals during the school day. Teachers are saying to us that they have a curriculum they have to meet and they are worried about not meeting certain things. There is a social aspect that we have seen in other jurisdictions to sitting down and giving students time to have their hot school meal, with benefits to delivery and students taking in the curriculum in the afternoon with a full stomach and having had a little fresh air, then coming back in and being settled.

As well as that, a number of the witnesses during the hot school meals discussion spoke about food education in schools, creating a culture in schools and empowering students and teachers to understand why they are eating one thing over another. Has Ms Forster looked at the feasibility of introducing these things into the new curriculum?

I might just start with the time first. I will go back a little bit because we carried out some work very specifically on time and structure in the curriculum. This included a public consultation back in 2017 and 2018. I am very conscious it predates the introduction of hot meals in schools. It is interesting to look back at that particular piece of work. At that time, there were certainly no strong calls in the feedback to look at the overall allocation of time for lunch and recreation in schools. We heard at the time, and including from the children, that they wanted more time to be physically active and to play.

When you look at the redeveloped primary school curriculum, one of the subjects and areas that we allocated increased time to was PE and SPHE - that well-being area. In terms of time for lunchbreaks, going off the feedback we heard and the consultation on time and structure, the suggested time allocation in the redeveloped curriculum is as it had been in the 1999 curriculum. A lot of this goes back to a circular from 1995, which colleagues in the Department might like to speak to. In the case of that circular and suggested allocations, there is some flexibility for schools in terms of the amount of time they allocate to lunch breaks. I am not sure if colleagues in the Department want to come in on that.

There was reference to a consultation predating the primary curriculum. The current circular which governs the school day dates from 1995. Obviously, that long predated hot school meals, which is an initiative that schools and society have welcomed in general.

As Ms Forster indicated, the circular states that recreation and lunch time must be a minimum of 30 minutes. Schools are not precluded from allowing a little bit more but they would be required to extend the school day to incorporate that. On whether to trade off teaching and learning against lunch breaks, I think everyone would agree they are all important for children. Lunch can be an important social learning experience as well.

That is the current situation. If that was to change, that would require extensive consultation with education partners in the way we would normally look at significant change in the way that schools operate. The board of management has that flexibility in the day-to-day running and timetabling in the school.

That opens up a whole other thing about extending the day to facilitate it. This committee has looked at other jurisdictions and we have seen that reduced schedules actually work. While it was speaking to us at this committee, even the National Parents Council said there was not enough time for the students to have that. The feedback we get from teachers is they do not feel they have enough flexibility to actually do that. That is where the food and nutrition lessons would probably come in and potentially expanding on that somehow. We will have to look at that if we are still using a circular from 1995.

I might ask Dr. Regan to speak about the health education piece because it is a very strong part of the well-being specification.

Dr. Regan has only 29 seconds in the slot, unfortunately.

I can do that. There is a health education strand within SPHE within the well-being specification. In that, there is a healthy living strand unit which specifically looks at food. Children are asked to demonstrate an awareness of the factors that can impact well-being and food is one of those. That spans right the way from junior infants up to sixth class.

When we worked with schools, we heard how important food and nutrition is as learning in the schools. That is reflected in the curriculum and there are plenty of opportunities for schools to engage with that type of learning and teaching through the well-being specification.

No problem. Hopefully, we will have time to come back to that.

Just to come back to it, I presume training courses for primary school teachers have been adjusted to reflect the new curriculum. It was said that modern foreign languages are included. Like my colleagues, I am concerned about those who have already gone through teacher training. It will take them time to catch up with all the changes, especially with the modern European languages. With Irish and learning another European language, they are languages. The children should be taught to speak them and that has not been happening.

I do not know if the witnesses have evidence now that children coming out of primary school are able to converse in Irish. Many of us studied Irish for 13 years and you learned off your statements for the oral in the leaving cert. It is still happening. I look at my own sons in secondary school and they are still doing the same. We are not teaching Irish as it should be taught; as a language students are able to converse in. I know one teacher in the local primary school has an interest in the language and teaches everything through Irish bar when she is doing English with the students. Those students are very confident in the language and you can see that.

Do the witnesses see it changing? Will the students learn to speak the language first and foremost and learn to write it afterwards? Being able to speak the language is more important. I could probably understand something that is written but if you asked me to try to have a conversation with someone in Irish, I would find it very difficult.

I might bring in the NCCA on this. I will just recognise that an important policy document was launched by the Department in 2025 on learning Irish in English-medium schools. That is an important policy framework and again spoke about igniting a love of the language, being able to communicate with one another and that joy in learning any language, which is so important for its success. There are primary languages on the curriculum and the primary curriculum framework will be a really important tool in that.

I can come in on the communication piece. What the Senator is pointing to there is communicative competence in the Irish language. As Ms Forster mentioned, the primary language curriculum is central to what children learn in Gaeilge. The aim is to create children as communicators of the language. I might be picking up that the emphasis should be solely on that. Research-----

No, but perhaps it should be initially. They should learn to speak it first and then read it and interpret grammar afterwards

The research in that space actually advocates for a balanced instruction approach where reading and writing are happening simultaneously because that is a stronger language learning model than perhaps a sole focus on oral language. I hear the Senator's point and we have data from recent inspection reports that point to teacher's proficiency and confidence in teaching the language as a challenge for the system.

Ms Conduit mentioned the Plean Gnímh don Ghaeilge i Scoileanna Meán-Bhéarla and what is really important in that is that we have actions in relation to the support for Gaeilge neamhfhoirmiúil i rith an lae. Senator Tully mentioned that teacher who used Irish amuigh as an gceacht Gaeilge i rith an lae. Tá sé sin an-tábhachtach ar fad le haghaidh na Gaeilge. That is now there in that action plan and supports will be put in place to enable teachers to strengthen the use of Gaeilge neamhfhoirmiúil i rith an lae.

We all learn to speak whatever language is spoken in our home by our parents speaking it to us. That is how we become immersed in the language. At four or five, or even in preschool, you learn to write it. We learn to speak it first and then the rest. I understand doing the two together but as long as the oral is not neglected as it was so many times. I often thought that our opportunity was there when the Free State was formed to make every primary school a Gaelscoil. We would all be proficient in the language now if that had been done.

On PE, I know it is now well-being, which is SPHE and PE. How much time should be given to PE every week? What about our weather? Most schools I know do not have a PE hall. A few do. I was in a school last week that has a PE hall. The school has divided it into two classrooms because it still has not received the additional accommodation needed in the school. That school has lost its hall. How do schools do it in the middle of winter? Our weather can be wet all year around, anyway.

We are increasing it from one hour currently to two hours per week. That is just to bring us up to the international average of time spent on PE. It is also in recognition of the fact that only 30% of children in this country meet their physical activity requirements of 30 minutes of vigorous activity per day. It is in recognition of that. There is an opportunity to achieve that through the school, which is fantastic.

I totally hear the point on facilities. We know that 38% of schools do not have access to an indoor space for PE but all of the others do. That is a mix between community services - they might be using a community centre - and schools having their own facilities.

We are aware of the climate we live in and the challenges. The guidance that we are preparing on planning for physical education and the increased time will offer suggestions on how to manage it. We have to recognise that in these situations where there is not access to an indoor space, children still have the right to access the PE curriculum and the outdoor space will have to be used. A very simple suggestion we will put forward is that PE is scheduled for Monday, so that if it is raining on Monday it could then be done Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. The really important thing here is that children meet their physical activity requirement during the school day.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I will quote from the INTO conference because the new curriculum is being introduced against a background of a teacher shortage which is disproportionately hitting urban areas, DEIS areas and places where rents are higher and teachers cannot afford to live. There are other factors as to the teacher shortage. Another issue is curriculum overload. I do not know whether the witnesses heard the teacher speaking on RTÉ radio in recent weeks about how teachers never get to see anybody any more. They go into the staff room and everyone is so busy. This was my experience when I went back into teaching. I could see what the new curriculum in secondary schools had added to that. I am worried about what this one will do for primary teachers.

The INTO stated its findings highlight that teachers in primary and special schools remain committed to every child in their care but they are being asked to deliver inclusive and special education in conditions that are unsustainable, including overcrowded classes, scarce resources, excessive paperwork, no dedicated time to plan and little or no access to specialist and professional supports, which the Government is failing to provide. Many teachers spoke about the emotional toll. Is the new curriculum addressing these very pressing concerns of teachers?

Curriculum overload is something we have heard about for quite a number of years. We have been very conscious of it. Being very conscious of it, we did a number of things throughout the redevelopment of the primary curriculum. Structurally we organised the different development groups that work with us in a way they could come together at different points of the work on the different curriculum areas and have conversations about concepts such as curriculum overload. Really importantly, we approached the design of the curriculum in a particular way to address curriculum overload. To give an example of some of the features of the curriculum that really speak to overload, it is now a learning outcomes-based curriculum, as opposed to a curriculum focused much more on activities, tasks and experiences. This gives flexibility to schools in terms of designing experiences for children that really meet the needs of the children in their classrooms and in their schools. This also speaks to the inclusion and diversity which the Deputy touched on.

Another strategy we used was that, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we worked very closely with the schools forum. We have done this over the past eight years. This is a network of 60 schools throughout the country with completely different school context and sizes. They have worked with us not only on the curriculum itself but also on guidance to support schools' work with the curriculum. I stress this because it has enabled us to make sure the redeveloped primary curriculum is absolutely anchored in research and anchored in the realities of schools and what they face on a day-to-day basis, some of which the Deputy touched on in her questions.

There is another element, with an eye to schools' experience in the next year or two. The Cathaoirleach mentioned earlier that it has been 25 or 26 years since we had the previous curriculum and we are very conscious of this in the NCCA. In recent years we have been evolving our approaches to how we review and monitor the curriculum. We are already working on planning out how we check back in with schools in the very early stages of their experience of working with this redeveloped curriculum.

What extra resources are being given to schools, particularly to DEIS schools, to implement this? I have a couple of quick questions. On professional development it was said that there will be leaders in our school. How many days professional development will the average teacher get for this new curriculum? This may have already been answered and I apologise if I missed it. In a lot of schools, the leaders of schools are not necessarily teaching but they will go back to teach it to other teachers.

What is the role of religion and how much religion is there in the new curriculum? We all know that religion has had a disproportionate amount of time in school curriculums. We are here trying to get time for children to eat their lunch and do all of the other things. How much of a change is there from the old to the new curriculum on this? I know the witnesses do not have a lot of time to answer these questions.

I will ask Ms Mooney to comment on the professional development. In general there is a commitment to two whole-school closure days regarding the enactment of the curriculum. There will also be sustained in-school supports over the period for the enactment and beyond. A lot of toolkits and resources have been provided for teachers which the NCCA, in partnership with others, has developed.

Does Ms Conduit think two days is sufficient for people to learn?

That is just the whole-school closure days.

Will there be other days?

There will also be in-school support and Ms Mooney might describe how this will be constructed.

I thank the Deputy for the question. This year, as I mentioned in my opening statement, is the introductory year. This year teachers will have two full days and leadership support then bolsters that. There will be leadership clinics to support leaders on the leadership perspective and change management. When we move into next year there will be a full day on the modern foreign language, all around building language awareness. There will also be a whole-school day in some essence for the teachers and the school leaders together on the curriculum specifications and primary curriculum framework. There will be multiple days of support, which is the sustained support that Ms Conduit spoke to. This will be in each of the curricular areas on an annual basis. Oide will respond. If we step into next year and the feedback tells us we need support in a different way, we will take that and speak to our colleagues in the Department and assess how it is working and whether the support is meeting the needs of teachers. This is an evolving piece as well.

It still does not seem like a lot, I have to say, for a whole new curriculum. Very quickly, what will be the difference between the old and new curriculum for religion?

We might come back to that because we have gone a minute over time.

There might be a one-sentence answer.

Is it a one-sentence answer?

There is a reduction of time. This concerns the patron's programme, some of which are denominational in focus. In terms of the reduction of time, currently two hours are allocated on a weekly basis from first class to sixth class and this will be a reduction of half an hour. For junior and senior infants the allocation will now be, with a reduction, one hour and 40 minutes.

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee and for their opening statements. It is very exciting to see that the curriculum will change because half of us here, not me but younger people, had the original curriculum. I am afraid I am too old for the 1999 curriculum. What I loved hearing was that it is about sparking joy in learning. Ultimately, this is what we want for any child going to primary school in this country. It is that they go in, learn something in school and are absolutely delighted coming home, saying what they had learned that day. Any curriculum that can speak to this I totally welcome. We must always measure things for the future. I also welcome that these will be the tools they need to succeed. This is very important. Everything that we can do in the curriculum to make sure this is possible is welcome.

I particularly welcome the arts curriculum because for a while the arts got a little bit lost and were not as prominent. This is about every part of a child's life, and the arts really touch a part that they may not be able to access anywhere else. Primary schools play a vital role in this through teachers, SNAs and all staff. Any time we go into a school, all we see is art everywhere. There is such creativity. I really welcome this in particular and the more we can have of it the better. I really think we lost it for too long.

With regard to well-being, a lot has been said already on exercise, sport and PE. It is a favourite subject. When I asked any of the students I worked with what was their favourite thing in school, they said the yard, their friends, PE and the arts.

We need to harness that because we can teach through those things as well. However, I am a little bit concerned. It is not all good news. I am a little bit concerned about modern foreign languages, which is a funny name for them anyway. We should just call them other languages. I do not know what else we can call them but modern foreign languages does not roll off the tongue. I am a little concerned about the foundation we are setting for languages. I am also concerned about the Irish language because I am hearing quite a lot, and I have spoken on it several times, that the Irish language is suffering in our schools at the moment, unless they are Gaelscoileanna. We need to be challenging that.

I have heard what has been said. I would love to see teachers not having to fund themselves to go to a Gaeltacht in the summer if they are doing the continuing professional development, CPD, because it is expensive and that also applies for the modern foreign languages, as we are calling them. How are we going to support teachers to do that? Surely, we cannot say to them that when they go on their holidays to France they can just use a bit of French there and teach it when they come back. That is not good enough. We need to make sure that teachers are immersed in the language because we want somebody who can speak the language clearly and teach it clearly. It is not just the foundation. When we get to secondary school, it is important that we have that foundation. I was a little concerned. It is not compulsory to have a language up to the junior cycle. It is needed for the CAO and it is very difficult to learn a language in two years. We need to look at that continuum.

Following on from Deputy Coppinger's point, I am glad to see the patrons programme is being reduced, particularly the religion part. We need to be looking at the ethics and other issues like that further. My question is mostly around how the Department will roll out the CPD and the initial teacher training for modern languages in particular, and any other part of the curriculum as well. Let us be honest: not everybody can play the guitar and not everybody is naturally great at drama, so how will we continue to support those teachers who have to deliver those in schools?

The Department is in sustained contact with the higher education institutions in planning for the introduction of the curriculum for modern foreign languages and the colleges of education in particular.

In terms of teacher professional training, TPL, Oide and PPLI will be key to that. The core subjects of the junior cycle are Irish, English and maths. There is a great deal of flexibility and latitude for students, but also for schools in what subjects they offer.

For the CAO, certain universities may require a language, but not all programmes and not all courses. Subject choice is probably the basis for a lot of provision in post-primary schools. We retain flexibility in that.

As Ms Conduit said, the provision for modern foreign language as an entire curriculum is divided between PPLI and Oide. We are working very closely with them to ensure our work is aligned. Teachers in the next school year will have a full day of professional learning on language awareness. That is the clear foundation that is needed prior to teaching any language. There will be another school day dedicated to modern foreign language and the language curriculum in the 2027-28 school year and school leaders, as I mentioned, will already have a leadership day along with support available to them through school support and sustained support around the leadership element of this.

It is really important to note the interconnectedness across all of the languages and that our work will promote a plurilingual approach where children are developing and building on all of their pluralingualism. That could be English, Gaeilge, their own home language and so on. Learning languages in that integrated way supports children's language learning more broadly. As I mentioned, we are at the very start of this support and Oide will do all it can to support teachers from a language awareness perspective.

Am I mistaken in thinking they are not going to do, say, Spanish? Rather, is it going to be that they learn the language through several languages? Have I misunderstood that?

If a school chooses to bring Spanish into the school in a number of years that could be connected to, as the previous Deputy mentioned, the modern foreign language they have been working on through the languages connect programme. Many schools are telling us that is what they will do. However, that is a couple of years down the road. That will not be happening in the next six or eight months. Schools will more than likely be selecting a language based on lots of criteria such as whether it has a teacher who has that language and so on. We are at the very early stages of that. PPLI will be supporting the language skill and the upskilling for teachers in that, rather than Oide.

Will the other subjects such as music and drama be rolled out in initial teacher education and then CPD provided along the way?

I can speak to the CPD piece of that rather than the ITE sector. Oide will be providing sustained support. That is up to three school days with support from Oide in the teacher's own school on each of the curriculum specifications including the arts, which is integrated. That will happen. A number of schools will select that for the coming year and we will then continue that on a rolling basis over the next five, six or seven years.

I thank all the witnesses for coming in today. I want to first acknowledge that reform is good and it is great that we are in this process. There are a few positives I take from it, particularly the modern foreign languages as a former French teacher at secondary level. It is great we are rolling it out in primary. Overall as a high-level concept it is brilliant. The well-being part and the fact that has to be a core in the first three strands that are introduced in every school is really positive. Overall on a high level, we are going in the right direction but we just need to tease out a few teething issues that are going to occur.

If we take the 1999 curriculum reform that was brought in, for every new subject that was introduced in 1999 school staff got two days of training and a third day of school planning to integrate a particular subject into the curriculum. I am hearing here that school staff will get two days overall in this new phased curriculum reform. Am I reading that right? Is that the status as we see it?

No, that is not the status. This year, schools are getting two whole school closure days and school leaders are getting additional support in online leadership clinics. That is just in this introductory year. As we move in, we have another two school days next year. Again, that is only the second year. That will also be complemented by the sustained support for each of the curricular areas. It is important to note that this is a gradual, phased approach and the learning gained from the first curricular specification that a school takes will deeply impact how it will approach the next curricular specification. It is building on learning on an annual basis. It is not starting from a green field. It is important to note that a lot of curriculum redevelopment has happened already and we are building on a lot of existing strengths. That is to look at the primary maths curriculum over the past number of years and the primary language curriculum.

That is where one of my concerns was. I went online and looked at stage 3 of the Muinín programme, the new five-week online training course. That takes place between 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. It is important to protect a teacher's family life and their ability to switch off. My belief is that teacher burnout and teacher shortages are inextricably linked in Ireland and that the fall-off of teachers we see is hugely related to burnout. If we are asking teachers to go online as the years go on and push things more outside of school hours into the afternoon and evening, it is not allowing a teacher any time to switch off. Being a primary school teacher is a very intensive job. They are dealing with very needy kids. Do we have a commitment that will be rolled out during school hours?

I am happy to respond to that. I thank the Senator for the question and I will give some clarity on the Muinín programme. Muinín is an elective piece. It is for a small cohort of teachers who feel they would like to do something in their own time. Oide likes to meet the needs of all of our teachers. Some people will like elective professional learning and Muinín fits that bill. Muinín will not be looking at any core pieces that are being done in a whole school day, I assure the Senator of that. A teacher will not miss out on something or be disadvantaged if they do not attend Muinín.

That is fair enough. One of the big motivators for asking that is that I am someone who taught French and who is not a natural fluent speaker of French but who had kids from all over the world who were fluent speakers in front of me. It is the most self-conscious I ever felt in my life when trying to teach through the target language to kids who are more fluent than I was. If we put teachers into an environment where they are not properly trained, it could have a hugely detrimental impact on their self-esteem in the classroom. I have an overall concern that we must do that right and be very mindful of it. We are introducing modern foreign languages. If the teacher is not at a certain level of fluency in French, for example, even in the early days, then the kids will not get immersive education because the language of instruction will not be the target language. Do the witnesses understand what I mean by that? That is an overall concern.

Is there any move to integrate animal welfare education into the overall primary school curriculum on a continuous basis? A piece of research I have recently done highlighted that at least €50 million per annum of public spending can be linked to animal cruelty. We have all seen the horror stories and online images of mistreated animals in one respect of another. It is harrowing at times. In cases where there is an ingrained culture of mistreatment of animals in a home, for whatever reason, the second best place to try to break that culture down is in the classroom. We have seen successes with the breakdown of racism, homophobia and other cultural issues where the classroom has been a very effective way of tackling them.

Can animal welfare education be integrated in the same vein now that we are looking are overall core reform?

While one will not find animal welfare explicitly mentioned in the specification, well-being has a strand entitled "community and belonging", which looks at the notions of rights and fairness. One learning outcome covers appreciating the importance of rights, equity, equality and justice. There is a learning outcome with the scope to look at animal welfare in the curriculum. It is not mandated content in the curriculum there is scope if the teacher wants to look at that in the well-being specification.

We have heard from other speakers about the overloaded curriculum, the amount on the curriculum and the burden on teachers so I am not trying to pour into an already filled cup. It would be good if there were more of a push to integrate it in some way from a high level from the Department to bring a focus on it with teachers. A teacher deals with a million things flying at them every day. They probably do not always have the presence of mind to realise they have not touched on animal welfare in a given year and it would be a good time to bring up a chat in the classroom. It is not something that will come naturally to every teacher when they already carry a fairly heavy, hectic workload. I would appreciate if that could be kept in mind going forward.

I thank members of the committee for allowing me the opportunity to attend today. I am not a member of this committee but I am interested in discussing the curriculum. I will focus on the well-being specification and more specifically PE. We know from research that children have a very different childhood from what I or many of us had in terms of physical literacy. They are not jumping, running, climbing trees and jumping off bales of hay the way we did when we were growing up. Even anecdotally from talking to secondary school PE teachers, children come into secondary school and they do not have the same physical literacy as they would have had. I was encouraged to see the changes in the draft well-being specification I read in July compared to the one that was then published. There is much more detail in the official specification now around PE activity areas. Athletics, gymnastics and dance are listed which is brilliant. My first question is about implementation, supports and resources for teachers. Teachers learn by doing the same way children do. Aside from online toolkits, how are our teachers being taught to teach these physical activity areas?

OIDE has been offering physical literacy as a seminar for the past number of years as part of the previous curriculum with very a high number of teachers attending. The Senator can be assured we have been offering that for the past number of years. The sustained support model for professional learning for the well-bring curriculum will be within the first three years in our work plan for OIDE for every school. Schools will select what part and element they would like to access support on. OIDE will be well placed to give support should it be in the area of physical literacy.

It is brilliant that the will-being specification is prioritised in the first three years. Ms Mooney mentioned a seminar - does that involve sitting down, learning, listening and PowerPoint presentations or is it actually getting involved, throwing a beanbag, running after it, picking it up, jumping over the hoop and all that?

It is exactly the latter. It is getting teachers physically active and mirroring activities they will engage in within the classroom. There are some reluctant teachers and some who are very enthusiastic who are all at different levels. OIDE always tailors that to work with the teachers who are there.

Ms Mooney mentioned reluctant teachers but teachers cannot be blamed. They have to do so much. I was raised by two teachers. There is an awful lot of responsibility. There are people who do not feel confident teaching PE because they do not feel competent. It is all about empowering teachers and education providers to feel competent in what they do so they have the confidence. It is a bit like the languages piece. The increase from one hour to two of PE per week is also positive. It is still a little off the programme for Government commitment to 60 minutes a day. In the other specification areas, are there any places that could incorporate more movement so that we can up to the 60 minutes a day ideal scenario in the programme for Government? Two hours a week is brilliant; some schools will really struggle to get to those two hours if they do not have the facilities. Looking outside the well-being SPHE and PE specification, is there scope to bring movement to other parts of the curriculum?

Yes; across the curriculum there is an endorsement of a pedagogy of the outdoors, working in the local environment in which the school is situated. There is fieldwork in social and environmental education. They might visit local sites, investigate particular topics of interest around the local area, do local investigations or visit local landmarks and famous places to explore. A lot of the STEM investigations happen in the local community. It is that nature of learning in the outdoors, connection to the local environment, investigating local topics of interest or investigations and coming to solutions through STEM, trialling and reiteration, seeing what works and what does not for your local community and being able to put in solutions to particular problems in your local community. Within social and environmental education, there are sustainable development goals and a real connection to the outdoors and the natural environment, exploring the natural environment around children all the time. There are plenty of opportunities for activity and outdoor learning.

One of my kids has been doing forest school every week for the past six weeks, which is brilliant. Even just walking to the local park and exploring is all movement.

To encourage schools in the implementation of the PE strand, the Department has given €10 million in grants to schools to spend on equipment and resources to help them enact the curriculum as it rolls out.

I thank Ms Conduit. I did not know that.

In addition to the time allocation given for well-being in the redeveloped curriculum, there is also a block of time referred to as flexible time. That varies from infant classes up to sixth class from five hours to seven. That is time schools themselves can decide how and where in the curriculum they want to use that. In the case of PE, for example, they could decide to allocate some additional time perhaps for a block of weeks or a term. That discretion lies with individual schools.

I know it is not necessarily within the Department's remit but I think Ms Conduit mentioned teacher education providers as one voice that spoke to the new curriculum. Was a gap identified in any of the courses for the third-level qualifications teachers get? Could more be done in teaching PE in that curriculum?

It is important to note and my colleague reminded me earlier that the Teaching Council which accredits all of the initial teacher education programmes has a set of standards called Céim. To get accreditation, you have to meet all of those standards. There is a review of Céim and there will be extensive consultation which will include new curriculum requirements at primary and secondary level to make sure initial teacher education responds and evolves in line with other developments in schools. That will be very important in the next couple of years.

Before we go to the next round, I welcome visitors from Kilkenny College who are guests of Deputy Catherine O'Callaghan. We have a bit of time left so I will allow four minutes for people to ask questions in the second round. Based on the schedule, I am first in.

Going back to my earlier point about additional time and the conversation since about overloaded curriculums, a lot of it is based on information from before the school dinners were introduced. I would like to see the witnesses' organisations demonstrate how dynamic the new curriculum is and looking to provide sufficient time for students to have the school meals. We spoke about animal welfare earlier and how much the State spent on that but a significant amount is being spent on school dinners as well. Without overburdening schools and teachers, can that be looked at and built into the nutritional side of things? Will the witnesses come back on that? On curriculum overload once again, we as a committee visited Finland. We saw how it integrated language in other subjects like science and social, personal and health education. It also has a shorter school day.

They feel that they are able to get a lot more done by integrating the subjects. Just going back to the foreign language side of things, would the Department give consideration to perhaps a number of schools sharing a special language teacher, especially rural schools? Will someone comment on those points?

The curriculum is designed within the framework we have, in that primary school teachers are generalists. It is generally one teacher per class. The important part is that there has been a lot of focus on capacity building and making sure teachers are competent and confident in teaching the new requirements and building on the skills they already have. The curriculum has been designed very much with that in mind rather than seeking to rely on a completely different model in our schools, which would be a specialist-teacher model, which is not where we want to go. Regarding the Finnish example, which is a good one, we have initiatives in our schools like teaching PE through Irish, for example. That is in a number of schools and they are supported in doing that. That in itself is a concept that will be familiar to a lot of Irish schools, but I might ask the NCCA to come in with some more detail on this.

As was mentioned, content language integrated learning is what was observed in Finland, and that is pedagogy within the primary language curriculum currently. Whether an initiative is happening in schools, it is also a pedagogy supported through the curriculum for every school to take up.

In terms of integration, one of the key pieces of work that we undertook was in relation to looking at integrated learning right across the curriculum. From junior infants to second class, the five broad curriculum areas are actually integrated curriculum areas. A lot of the learning there is integrated learning. There are connections across those curriculum areas for further integration opportunities as well. We see that as being really helpful, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach mentioned, in furthering children's learning right across the curriculum. As we move up the school from third to sixth class, it does become more subject-based, which reflects how children begin to categorise their learning. That also connects with junior cycle on that other side as well. We been really cognisant of the opportunities as, Ms Forster, outlined, for reducing curriculum overload, but the integration and the content language integration learning are also features of those measures that we undertook.

Building on what a few of the previous speakers have mentioned about school closure days and capacity building for the teachers, that is welcome. As a parent of a primary school going kids, I find that more days off like that are coming up, so if they could be flagged very early for parents, that would be very welcome. Thank you very much for that. The next speaker is Senator Pauline Tully.

One of the primary curriculum framework aims is around improving STEM subjects. I know that is really important. As a former maths teacher at second level, I noted the range of ability in maths varied hugely in children coming from primary school. Some had a very good competency while for others, I wondered what they had learned at all in primary school. It often came down to the ability of the teacher they had in primary school to teach maths. Is there a certain qualification requirement in maths to become a primary school teacher or is it just basically a pass at leaving certificate level? It does make a difference because if students do not get a good grounding in primary school, they are at a huge disadvantage when they come into secondary school in all of the subjects.

Regarding special schools, is there more ambition for students in special schools now? Over the years, many students left special schools without any sort of a qualification whatsoever. Is there going to be some sort of qualification for students? Obviously, it would be different for different students and would reflect their abilities. For example, we have many autistic children in our secondary schools who are highly intelligent and would possibly be capable of achieving a junior certificate or a leaving certificate.

I thank the Senator for her questions. I will address her question about mathematics at primary level and the range of abilities that come through primary education into post-primary education. We recently reformed the primary mathematics curriculum in 2023. A large-scale, extensive CPD programme was put in place for all teachers in terms of the primary mathematics curriculum and a really extensive support toolkit as well for teachers to engage with through our website on curriculumonline.ie. With mathematics we often find it is tied to a child's sense of identity. They either feel they are good at maths or not good at maths and we have been trying to really tease out and disentangle the myth that children are either good at maths or not good at maths. We have got a really positive productive disposition within the maths curriculum that every child is a mathematician. Maths is beautiful and is something that everybody can achieve in and progress in. There is also a difference in gender. Boys think they are better at maths than they actually are. Surprise, surprise. They have an inflated sense of self-identity in maths, but actually their scores with girls at the same age group in primary are the same. There is something going on there that we want to investigate further as well. With every new curriculum there is a renewed opportunity for professional learning, for supports to be refreshed in terms of our own supports in NCCA and we will see that with the primary maths curriculum in the next few years as it really takes hold.

The perception of being good at maths or not good at maths is something they pick up from their teacher.

Parents too.

A parent once said to me that her daughter was no good at maths in primary school but I found her to be very good when I was teaching her. There are so many different aspects to maths. I used to tell students that there was no way they could be bad at all aspects of maths because there are so many different areas such as statistics, geometry, algebra. They all think it is all algebra or something. The aforementioned child did really well. I do not know if she picked up the negative connotation just from her mother. I think it was from her scores in primary school.

We see this right across the board with children's academic concept. As they move through primary school, they begin to feel less smart, and it actually declines. We need to do something there in terms of supporting a strengths-based approach and a real child-centred approach to making sure all children progress, and that they see that they are making progress. This in turn leads to better academic success, when people feel that they can actually achieve it.

Apologies if there is any repetition. I had to step out for a while. Why do we do such a big overhaul? I was not that long out of primary school myself when the curriculum was introduced in 1999. Society has moved on so much and so many things have changed. Why are our subjects not evolving as we move through the years, as opposed to this? Even in the six years that it is going to be implemented, so much is going to be changed at the end of it.

I will go back to 2012 when we started the work on the redevelopment. A number of factors were contributing to the work as we commenced it. As the Deputy mentioned, life was changing and 16 years ago life was quite different but we were also learning much more from research about how children learn and how they can be supported in their learning. We also have had very significant curriculum developments on either side of the primary curriculum. We now have a curriculum framework for early childhood. In fact, we have an updated framework for early childhood, and we have had very significant developments at junior cycle. We also had quite a bit of feedback from schools in terms of what worked really well, but also where the challenges were within the 1999 curriculum. All of that contributed to the rationale for looking again and the redevelopment.

Looking at the curriculum areas and the subjects, we have already spoken about some of the key changes in modern foreign languages, etc. When we get down into the detail of the learning that sits in the curriculum, while we recognise many of the curriculum areas and subjects from 1999, the learning is quite different. In my opening statement, I referred to the introduction of key competencies. That is a big change in the primary curriculum. That is a very clear acknowledgement that the world is very different. Young people and children need a different set of tools and strategies when we think of now and into the future.

Coming back to the point of what happens from this point onwards, as I mentioned earlier, we are very conscious that having very long cycles of 25 or even 30 years in between significant revisions is no longer sustainable in the world we live in now. A really big piece of work within the NCCA across early years, primary and post-primary, is to continue to look at how can we improve how we go about reviewing the curriculum and updating it.

A little bit earlier, I mentioned that we are already thinking on planning about how we can monitor and check in with schools, literally in the next two or three years, to learn from their really early experiences with the curriculum and use that information then to perhaps make updates or tweaks in the curriculum. It is to have an approach where we can do it more on an ongoing basis in direct response to what schools are telling us. That also enables us to keep a very close eye on research and to ensure that all of that contributes to the curriculum staying relevant and meaningful and up to date for children.

I thank Ms Forster. Very briefly, I do not know if anyone heard on the radio this morning the mother speaking about her neurodivergent child and school avoidance. It was heartbreaking. It was not the teachers and it was not the pupils; it was the environment he was in that was really stopping him attending. I wondered when I was reading about the topic of well-being, is that part of the curriculum now? Will our children be learning inclusion about neurodivergence? Are our teachers learning at the level we need them to be to try to help in that school avoidance topic?

In addition to that, we have our National Educational Psychological Service so when things get to that point, which is obviously very challenging for everyone concerned - the child, the family and the school - we have expertise within the system to help support schools more broadly in dealing with those issues as well as distinctly in the curriculum and trying to support children to build resilience and all of that, which Dr. Sullivan might come in on.

I thank the Deputy for her question. In terms of the primary curriculum, we have two really key principles of the eight principles in the primary curriculum, one being engagement and participation. When children feel engaged, when they feel like they are participating and that their voice matters, then they feel like they belong to a school and are less likely to want to avoid school in that situation the Deputy described. There is also the inclusion and diversity principle that underpins the redeveloped curriculum. It is about seeing children in their totality in terms of holistic learning and the welcoming school environment, and every interaction you have with a child being based on fundamental respect and value for that child in terms of inclusion and diversity. We are very conscious of that.

I am sorry I had to step out for a little while there. I want to ask, and maybe this is for the Department, about the engagement with unions and teachers and teacher representatives as part of all this process. Is that an important part of the process? Is that something that is ongoing? Obviously, teachers are on the front line in relation to this.

The NCCA and Oide will have their own structures for engagement for the unions more specifically around curriculum development and implementation. The Department takes a very strong partnership model with all of the education partners, including the unions, but also management bodies, principal representatives and all of that. We would, therefore, have a very structured engagement through, for example, the primary education forum. All of those stakeholders are on it. Parents' voices and other key stakeholders are represented. Specifically in relation to this topic and the enactment and concerns, for example, the INTO may have in relation to supporting teachers and capacity building and all of that, the Department has engaged extensively with the union and continues to do so. I am a very short time in this job, but I have already been to one of those meetings and there have been a number this year. We will continue to engage because, obviously, their voice is very important if this is to be successful for children.

It was specifically that aspect I was interested in, so I thank Ms Conduit for that. I would encourage that ongoing engagement.

I will take up on a point Ms Forster and Dr. Regan mentioned earlier in relation to the Irish language - an Ghaeilge. Somebody mentioned that there was going to be a focus on the communicative approach. The witnesses might expand on that point. What exactly does that mean? I heard some other colleagues mention the outputs or outcomes from a long time of at least being exposed to the Irish language in a class-based setting and that come the end of it, either at primary school or secondary school, it is not necessarily reflected. Is that something the witnesses are conscious of?

Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned, the primary language curriculum that is in place, which includes Gaeilge, Béarla agus nuatheangacha iasachta anois, has a focus on communicative competence. What that actually looks like is that an emphasis is placed on children actually learning the language through interaction and meaning-making. At a very practical level in the classroom, teachers are encouraging the language to be spoken so that children can see there is actually a real-life application for this language out in the community. I saw this when I was teaching myself. Again, it is so important that it is not the teacher at the top of the room talking all the time but that the majority of the language lesson is focused on giving opportunities to the children in the classroom to actually speak the language. To give the Deputy a flavour of the types of things that are encouraged through the curriculum, we have verbs like "communicate", "interact", "respond", "express opinion" and "express meaning". The language used in the curriculum is very much encouraging teachers to approach language learning in that manner rather than, say, through a textbook. The primary language curriculum very much encourages that type of teaching and learning in relation to the Irish language.

In terms of assessment then, is that going to change or how will that look?

This came up a little bit earlier and we were not in a position to respond due to time. The NCCA is currently redeveloping assessment guidance. We had extensive assessment guidance provided on foot of the 1999 curriculum. That assessment guidance looks at a whole range of methods and strategies that teachers can use. There was a reference earlier to standardised testing, which is actually the work of other bodies rather than the NCCA, but we are working on updated guidance for teachers and that will include examples of what really good assessment looks like in the different curriculum areas and subjects. In the case of Gaeilge, some of what we will produce will be focused exclusively on what Dr. Regan has spoken about. That is just giving really practical examples from classrooms in Ireland as to what good assessment can look like and how that can be used to support the next step in a child's learning in Irish.

Are they in development?

They are in development and some of that will be published for the beginning of the next school year. We prioritised that to ensure it was ready for schools beginning to work with the redeveloped curriculum.

I am sorry; I was in my own world there. It is great that the curriculum is going to come in. There is going to be this love for learning and everything. Are there resources that schools will need to implement this curriculum, particularly when it comes to science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM? People cannot do science without equipment. They cannot do different things. Do schools need things? Are they in place? If not, when will they be?

The second question is about whether the curriculum is disability-proofed. I may not be saying that correctly, but is it accessible to every child who will come into our schools depending on their needs? How will we ensure that children are accessing the curriculum to the best of their ability and that we have the most up-to-date methodology for teaching this curriculum to those students and all students?

My colleague, Mr. Bohan, might take the first question about resources and then maybe hand over to the others.

In terms of resources, it is an important step. We have been working hard to make sure that the right level of resources is given to schools. In 2024, there was €9 million provided to schools. It was suggested that they use that towards both the arts and the STEM curriculum in getting together the types of resources and physical resources they might need. As was mentioned earlier, at the end of 2025, we paid out €10 million, which we suggested would be towards the physical education end of the well-being curriculum. As time goes on, we will be looking to put more grants into schools on the other areas of the curriculum over time. Obviously, these things do not last forever, so we will be looking as time goes on to ensure there is the right level of support to make sure they have the resources available.

I thank Mr. Bohan.

In terms of curriculum supports around some of the areas the Deputy mentioned, Ms Forster mentioned the development of assessment guidance, which is coming.

We are also developing guidance around curriculum planning, inclusion and practical examples of STEM education in different contexts, with teachers sharing practice and NCCA illustrating that for schools to use.

I mentioned the principle of diversity and inclusion which underpins the full redevelopment of the curriculum. We have worked really closely with special schools in recent years. They were at our schools forum that Ms Forster mentioned. We have been meeting with them since 2018. We have had over 35 meetings with those schools. They have been telling us about their lived experiences and realities. They have enriched the curriculum beyond many other engagements we have had because they shed new light on learning and teaching in a different context. Our longitudinal study of children's school lives also sheds a light on the experiences of children with additional needs in our system. Children have told us about their experiences and this curriculum has brought all of that information to bear. On the front cover of every document is a statement for all primary and special schools. Heretofore, special schools did not really see themselves in the primary curriculum.

A specific piece of guidance that we are developing is around general learning disabilities guidelines. We are just beginning that piece of work and it will progress in the coming months to support schools and particularly those with additional needs.

The curriculum is for all schools, primary and special. While it is not represented here today, the NCSE has been heavily involved with our colleagues on the supports provided to teachers in special schools, mirroring what Oide is doing in primary schools.

It is important for the curriculum to be available using braille and other visual aids to make sure it is as inclusive as possible. Rather than being an afterthought, that should be from the get-go in order that whatever is introduced is for readers of Braille and users of other means of access, particularly for those hands-on things where physical disability may exclude certain children. We need to make sure that is not the case. We have a great opportunity now for it to be as inclusive as possible. I thank the witnesses for all their work.

I will make a final point on a particular cohort of children. In case the committee is not aware of it, the NCCA has been asked to develop a curriculum for Irish Sign Language for both primary and post primary. We are at a very early stage of the work but it is an important piece.

I want to ask about religion in the new curriculum. Having looked at it further and bearing in mind the witnesses' previous answers, is it not the case that the new curriculum is maintaining and reinforcing discrimination in our school system? First of all, teachers have to teach two hours of religion per week when they may not be religious. It is faith formation. Is this not an opportunity lost for the witnesses, who are designing the curriculum? That is leaving aside the fact schools are denominational. Consider if they were designing a curriculum and did not have to adhere to this law. For example, non-Catholic children will remain segregated and isolated in many schools, forced to sit through two hours per day of what some would call religion. I would call it indoctrination because the patron of the school will have the right to write their own religious programme. Some 90% of schools are still run by religious patrons. Children will learn about other religions but they are only learning about them. Is it good enough in a 21st century democracy that we still have two hours of indoctrination of children? Schools retain the legal right to design their own religious programme to fit in with their ethos.

I will provide a few figures from the census. In 2022, the number of people with no religion was 14% of the population. Then there is the number of younger people, whose children will experience this new curriculum. Of 25- to 29-year-olds, only 53% identified as Catholic. Often on a census people will say, "I was born Catholic, I'm Catholic". We do not even know how Catholic they are. In the 0- to 4-year-old group, 65% are identified as Catholic by their parents while 16% have no religion. There is an increasing cohort who are not religious or do not regularly subscribe to one religion, but the new curriculum is maintaining two hours of religion for children in our already overburdened school system. It is a little bit less for infants. It is ludicrous to talk about an inclusive curriculum while maintaining this right, to say nothing of the fact that teachers who often are not religious are still being pushed to teach this because they have to subscribe to the school ethos. It is disappointing there was not more of a challenge to this if a new curriculum is coming in for the first time in over a quarter of a century.

The Deputy is straying into policy, on which it would be more in line for the Minister to respond. The witnesses are free to give a response if they like.

They designed the curriculum with two hours in it.

That would be a policy issue we would have to bring up with the Minister.

I am asking why they felt they had to do that.

Do the witnesses want to give an answer?

I thank the Deputy for her comments and question. There is a range of patrons programmes across schools and it very much depends on the denomination of the school. There are multi-belief programmes, ethical programmes, values-based programmes and denominational programmes. The overwhelming majority are denominational, as the Deputy mentioned. The allocation before 2023 was two and a half hours per week; that has been reduced to two hours per week in this redeveloped curriculum.

NCCA has introduced learning around religions, beliefs and worldviews for all children. In the part of the curriculum we have developed, there is a piece within social and environmental education – that is, history and geography – where religions, beliefs and worldviews are introduced. All children will engage with learning around religions, beliefs and worldviews from the work that NCCA has brought forward.

We operate within the legal framework of the Education Act in respect of the patron's right to develop their programme. That has stood heretofore so we were working within that legal construct. There have been recent developments around parental surveys of school choice organised by the Department of Education and Youth. The national convention is coming up as well. That is the current state of play in terms of curriculum provision and the reduction of time that has taken place.

It could have been reduced further, even within the legal framework. The witnesses were not totally powerless. They could have reduced it more.

I might clarify one little point on that.

Okay.

There is a legal piece about what a reasonable amount of daily teaching time is. That is the wording.

What is that characterised as? How much is that?

We have put forward that two hours per week, which is about 25 minutes per day, is a reasonable amount of time to be allocated for the teaching of that programme. Others could disagree. There is a legal discussion to have around what is reasonable and what is not.

We have gone round twice. If there is anything the witnesses would like to say before we conclude, I will open it up. They have two minutes apiece if there is something they would like to cover that might not have been covered.

I do not think there is anything specific I want to cover. I thank the Deputies and Senators and the Cathaoirleach for the thought-provoking questions. These are important issues which will remain ongoing policy considerations in the Department, and in terms of developmental work on the curriculum and how we support teachers, schools and leaders, as it enacts. I hope we have conveyed today how open we are to that ongoing responsiveness. We are not just landing and dictating a set of - hopefully not too onerous - requirements on schools without making sure they have the financial supports, teaching support and resources they require to make it a success.

I am delighted that there was such welcome for aspects of the new curriculum and for the guiding spirit behind it, which is sparking and maintaining a love of learning it in children. Our primary schools have done an excellent job of that to date, and we hope this will only support and enhance the really important work they do every day.

I echo everything Ms Conduit said. To build on what she said,from the NCCA perspective, there was also the redevelopment of the curriculum - I touched on this in my opening statement - which was a significant national endeavour. We looked recently at the figures across the redevelopment of the curriculum. The number of people involved was 11,000 to 12,000. We had 4,500 pages of feedback as we redeveloped the curriculum. I wanted to acknowledge that huge involvement on the part of schools and the public in shaping the curriculum. I go back to a point I think all of us have touched on which is that we really believe and know that this curriculum holds huge potential in the context of making a really positive and lasting difference for every child in Ireland. There are supports and resources required. We have spoken about those, and we will continue to take feedback, certainly in our work, from schools and contribute in the best way we can. I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here to talk with members.

I thank everyone. My colleagues have spoken about what a lovely opportunity this was for us. It shows every day really is a school day for all of our colleagues. It is important for members to note that we are at the very start of this, as I have mentioned. Oide is a relatively new organisation. It was formed in 2023. This is a really exciting opportunity for us. We are really energised by this change in curriculum redevelopment. We see this as a great opportunity to transform the work of teachers and school leaders and to have a lasting impact on the learning outcome and learning experience of children in our schools. We will walk with schools. That will be the work of Oide over the next number of years. It is a gradual piece of support that will take place over a long period. As we work through it, we will respond to the emerging needs of schools, teachers and school leaders. I thank the committee so much for the opportunity.

On behalf of the committee, I thank all the officials for coming. The briefing has been very informative.