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

A prominent member of the group tasked with reforming Leaving Certificate maths courses has said she resigned from the body because she did not want to be associated with draft courses that were “incoherent and mathematically inaccurate”. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin, associate professor of mathematics education at DCU, resigned from the Mathematics Development Group, which advises the National Council for Curriculum Assessment, last June. Speaking on RTÉ Radio 1’s Morning Ireland on Tuesday, Ní Shúilleabháin said she believed the draft specifications for the new courses would, if implemented, “do a disservice to our young people”. “It will fail to adequately prepare them for their future lives in society and work and study because mathematics underpins so many aspects of our world but particularly Stem, which is so important to our economy. And I think at the heart of this, it’s a systems issue. Subject experts are not formally or consistently included in any subject development group,” she said. READ MORENí Shúilleabháin said the work being done by the Mathematics Development Group was “hugely important”, as its role was to effectively draft the new specifications for the way maths would be taught in schools.Last January, Prof Pauline Mellon also left the group and expressed similar concerns.Ní Shúilleabháin said experts were being asked to participate in curriculum changes but their contributions were being ignored and this had led to “frustrations and resignations” in other science subjects.“I’m very worried about the lack of rigour or the reduction in content and abstraction that we have for our high-achieving students, this seems to be a systems issue,” she said. “There were excellent people on this group and I want to absolutely say I very much enjoyed working with people on the group and there’s some excellent teachers on the group and that is necessary. “However, the balance of subject-matter experts has to be there with pedagogy experts and teachers, as is done in most other countries where you have a good balance of subject experts and teachers. But in this case, it’s the decision-making processes that continues to be opaque.“Within the group, if people made suggestions, you would not understand or realise if they would be adopted or not, if they were agreed with or not, if they would be ignored or not, because mathematical errors, as an example, were independently and objectively corrected by separate members of this group and that has been consistently ignored.”When asked whether efforts were being made to dumb down the Leaving Cert maths course, Ní Shúilleabháin said she did not like such language, but there had never been an opportunity to ask what would students need in 10 years time.“They’re going to be graduating at a time or coming into a world of work at a time that is data-driven and AI-based. Is there mathematics topics or mathematical skills that we are not teaching them currently that will benefit them into the future? That discussion was not had and I think that’s to the detriment of our young people,” she said. Ní Shúilleabháin said she had “consistently” shared her concerns with the group and members of the NCCA and had requested a meeting with the Minister for Education.Prof Mellon, of the UCD school of mathematics, said she had resigned from the group because the process was not fit for purpose and she could not give her stamp of approval to the curricula.There were problems with all three levels - “foundation, ordinary and higher,” she told RTÉ Radio 1’s Today with David McCullagh show.“And at the same time, I could see that feedback was not being taken on board. I had exhausted every possible avenue to try and get my voice heard. And I resigned because I feel they’re not fit for purpose. And I can’t give any stamp of approval to the curricula in that state.”Advice was not listened to, everything was very tightly controlled, she added.“There was, I believe, lack of engagement. Unfortunately, I think there’s a wider problem with the process, which is intrinsic to what’s actually going on.“The NCCA do not routinely or formally or systematically in any way involve subject experts. There’s very few. So there might be 20 people around the table with only one or two subject experts. And that’s not that doesn’t appear to be accidental because similar concerns have been raised with other subjects.”In response, the NCCA said draft mathematics specifications were recently published and were not “final specifications”. “Over the next three months of the consultation, the NCCA is inviting wide public engagement with the draft specifications which will help to identify areas requiring further work or refinement,” it said. “The consultation feedback will play an important role in shaping the final stage of work on the two specifications. Such work will help to ensure that we have mathematically accurate, coherent, rigorous, inclusive and manageable mathematics specifications that prepare students appropriately for life, work, and further and higher education. NCCA Development Groups mainly consist of representatives of the education partners.”The NCCA also said it was considering the nature of expertise required on the Development Group to complete its work before deciding whether it is necessary to seek to co-opt an additional member to the group.