1. 1 | P a g e
Valerie Desirotte – December 2014
Contemporary issues in Teaching, Learning &
Assessment
“An overview of contemporary curriculum discourse shows a worrying drift to
the technical; in current curriculum debates, technique is winning out over
substance, procedures over principles.”
(Looney 2001, p.149)

2. 2 | P a g e
Introduction
Although assessing the dualistic aspect of Looney’s quotation at the start of this essay,
I decided to focus my attention on the concepts behind her choice of terminology. What
interested me was the use of the words ‘substance’ and ‘principles’ and their actual meaning,
which appear to be overly subjective. I first attempt to define curriculum and trace its origins
back briefly to 16th
century Europe, to this idea of a ‘fixed body of knowledge’ and the
advent of modern schooling dominated by Christian ideology and a new conception of
childhood, followed by the governing practices of the nation state and its political, economic
and cultural objectives of the 18th
and 19th
century (Zuffiaure 2007, p. 143, Smith 2012, p.
28). Knowledge, in its various forms, has always been at the heart of the curriculum and its
legitimacy or illegitimacy a primary concern. However, the rationale for including or
excluding knowledge from the curriculum usually rests on the motivation of powerful groups.
I will look at the Irish educational context, tracing it back to the creation of the national
school system in 1831 and how the British government and the various religious
organisations used mass education to further their own economic, political and ideological
interests. After independence in 1922, I will make a case for the lack of a philosophy of
education in Ireland as identified by Gleeson (2010), as a result of the separation of its moral
and ethical aspects, left to the Catholic Church, from its operational side, entrusted to the
state, and how this division prevented successive governments to devise a ‘whole curriculum’
(p. 95). However, in these postmodern times of the knowledge society, where
multiculturalism is replacing the old order, the Irish curriculum, be it at primary or secondary
level, is in need of a major overhaul with a view to address the increasing demand for new
thinking and creative skills but also to redefine its substance, in line with the evolution of
Irish society. An honest reflection on historical fabrications in order to create a new vision for
Irish education is urgently required.
Dualistic nature of educational discourse
Looney (2001) argues that the substance of the curriculum, in Ireland, has been
undermined and relegated to the back of the classroom while its organisation and evaluation
has been promoted to the front; the debate about what ‘counts as legitimate knowledge’ is
non-existent, while all governmental efforts are focused on the technical aspects of managing
the curriculum (p. 151). Once more, the dualistic nature of educational debate is being
exposed as Looney’s statement does not escape the well-established conceptual struggle
between the two opposing forces to which policymakers, academics and researchers, engaged
in education, have sworn allegiance. Although first used as a term in the religious sphere by
Thomas Hyde in the 18th
Century, the concept of dualism dates back a few millennia. It is
defined by Edling (2014) as the organisation of the world ‘into two fixed categories
containing their own essence’ (slide 5). Indeed, McCarter (2011) explains that ‘human
societies’ always tended to ‘view the world in terms of polarities’ and establish opposing
points of reference between which they can navigate and make sense of their experience (p.
19). Whereas some of these opposing points can merge, e.g. between hot and cold, there is
mild and warm, others are pushed to extremes and become irreconcilable. In the latter case,
Fontaine (2011) talks of dualism when:

3. 3 | P a g e
it is no longer possible to reduce the terms of the opposition more or less to each other; there are no
longer intermediate terms; there is no longer any relationship or connection at all between the terms.
The opposition has become unsolvable. The poles of the opposition always differ in quality; there is a
superior one and an inferior one. The lesser one is denigrated, vilified, rejected, or will eventually be
destroyed. The dualistic opposition may be one between principles or ideologies or organisations or
sects or groups of people or even between persons.
(Fontaine 2011, p. 266)
This definition seems to be quite relevant to the educational debate where, to quote Looney
(2001), ‘technique is winning out over substance [and] procedures over principles’ (p. 149).
Young (2014) refers to Alexander’s concern about the use of dichotomies in social science
and how they ‘reduce complex educational debates to bipolar slogans, cast in a state of
permanent and irreconcilable opposition’ (p. 12). These terms belong to the two paradigms of
educational studies, positivism and interpretivism, battling each other with a view to
dominate and/or supplant one another from the time of their creation in 18th
/19th
century
Western Europe, but which Carr and Kemmis (1986) associate with Aristotle’s classification
of disciplines as ‘theoretical’, ‘productive’ and ‘practical’ (p. 32). While the ‘theoretical’
disciplines are mainly concerned with the ‘attainment of knowledge for its own sake’, the
productive disciplines are concerned with ‘making’ something in accordance with ‘the rules
of the craft’, referred to as techne, and accordingly, linked to the scientific and technical
nature of the positivist movement and its quantitative approach to research grounded in
objectivity, where hypotheses are tested scientifically and where results are reliable and
generalizable. The ‘practical’ disciplines are connected to the interpretivist paradigm and its
qualitative methodology, as they are about ‘doing action’ and reflective by nature. This action
of doing, or Praxis, remakes ‘the conditions of informed action and constantly reviews action
and the knowledge which informs it’ (Ibid p. 33). Interpretive approaches acknowledge that
each individual, be it student or teacher, is unique and that experience is therefore subjective,
and cannot be ‘subjected to the general explanatory accounts required by those who manage
the system’ (Pring 2000, p. 248).
Although a dialectical approach to the use and application of those paradigms would
be more favourable than an eschatological one, the positivist technical approach is,
understandably, favoured by policymakers who are looking for a ‘science of teaching’,
clearly outlining what needs to be done with a view to improve educational outcomes (Ibid,
p. 247). Hence the popularity of Tyler’s rationale amongst educational officials and its
‘means –end rationality’ mentioned by Looney (2001) in her article as a prime example of
rampant positivism, which provided governments with an ‘easy’ step-by-step guide of how to
achieve success in mass education, or so they hoped (p. 151). Halvorson (2011) reviews the
technological framing of the rationale, unsurprisingly based on Taylor’s scientific
management (1911) and its re-organisation of work, but also on Aristotelian thinking as
mentioned above (pp. 34-35). Spawning from the popularity of positivism and its quantitative
approach, the curriculum is now clearly and ‘simply’ structured. It has objectives, efficient
pedagogical methods to reach those objectives, and assessments to evaluate these objectives
have been met. Indeed, this is how I was taught to devise my lessons plans while on teaching
practice, a few years ago. Gleeson (2010) would concur as he states that Irish curriculum of

4. 4 | P a g e
the last fifty years or so, has also been dominated by this ‘technical paradigm’, within which,
‘knowledge is objective, abstract and independent of time and place […] consists of rules,
procedures and unquestionable truths’ (p. 2). According to Young (2014), Dewey who, in
early twentieth century, had already warned against a positivistic view of education and how
this colonised ‘other alternatives in education’, makes this issue quite an old one (p. 9).
These authors are suggesting that delivering the contents of the curriculum has
become more important than the content itself, and even more so, that the content has been
designed to facilitate its delivery. However, besides the apparent dualistic nature of Looney’s
quote, one of the first thoughts that came to my mind while I was reading the subject of my
assignment, was her use of the words ‘substance’ and ‘principles’. What is the substance of a
curriculum? What ought it to be? What principles should it follow, and more importantly,
devised by whom? Looney (2001) regrets that curriculum debates have ‘moved from
philosophy to technicality’, but she does not explain what curriculum philosophy is or should
be (p. 151). She talks about developing a ‘curriculum conscience’, i.e. critically reflecting on
curriculum structure, with a view to unravel and become aware of the ideologies behind the
technical rationale and guide us back towards the theoretical, which I understand to be this
‘substance’ of the curriculum she refers to (p. 161). However, my interrogation stands; what
is the substance of the curriculum and overall, what is curriculum?
Origin and nature of curriculum
Scott (2014) defines curriculum very clearly as: ‘a set of teaching and learning
prescriptions, [which] is in essence a knowledge forming activity’ (p. 14). Young (2014)
agrees regarding the central role of the curriculum in passing on knowledge, but refers also to
Durckeim’s definition (1938) about curricula as a ‘social fact’ which is never ‘reducible to
the acts, beliefs or motivation of individuals’ but is a structure offering possibilities and
setting limits on what can be learned, where, how and at what age (pp. 14-15).
Zufiaurre (2007) recalls the birth of ‘modern’ schooling and of the curriculum as a
learning structure of 16th
century Europe, when terms such as ‘syllabus’, ‘class’, ‘catechism’,
‘didactic’ and ‘curriculum’ appeared in the European lexicon for the first time (p. 142). In
this early modern period, education, who had been largely removed from the care and
responsibility of the extended family, had become the dominion of religious orders and
‘concerned with the instruction of Christian texts and philosophy’ (Oswell 2013, p. 114).
Under these influences, education took an ‘instructional turn’ and the questioning practices of
the Greeks and Romans was replaced by a question and answer structure, i.e. the catechism,
and the birth of the curriculum:
The instructional turn not only embraced reforming the catechism, it also included the emergence of
the idea of a fixed body of knowledge – a curriculum – which could be described as a series of
content headings (a syllabus) which, in turn, contained knowledge that could be delivered in a linear,
one-after-the-other fashion.
(Zuffiaure 2007, p.143)

5. 5 | P a g e
This ‘instructional turn’ in education, Zuffiaure (2007) goes on saying, marks the beginnings
of modern schooling, still widely in use today. The role of Johan Amos Comenius is also
noted as being key in the emergence of modern schooling as he is partly responsible for the
implementation of the different school stages, one of the principle features of modern
education, and the nowadays frowned upon, role of the teacher as ‘the master [standing]
before the class’, ensuring the full attention of his students who should only be concerned
with his teachings and nothing else (Courier quoting Comenius 1957, p. 6, accessed 13
September 2014). Although he is known and respected for his ‘humanist’ project of educating
all men (and perhaps some women), he was a devout Bishop and theologian, and perceived
God as the source of all knowledge, attainable through faith and the ‘key to human salvation’.
As a result, he understood education as embracing the ‘physical, mental and spiritual
dimensions’ as can still be seen in Irish educational aims today (Zuffiaure 2007, p. 143).
The emergence of the modern school system, with its enclosed spaces, instruction and
timetabling of its syllabus can also be linked to a new conception of childhood, which
evolved over a long period of time through iconographies and the ‘accumulation of
descriptions’ based on the evolution of society, which finally resulted in a distinct
classification and labelling of the youngest section of the population in the 19th
century
(Oswell 2013, p.14). Sparking from the ancient Christian concept of the innocent or evil child
which needs to be educated in order to remain, or to become, innocent, it is linked to the idea
of obedience enforced by discipline as illustrated by comments made by Rev. T. J. Corcoran,
UCD Professor, quoting the old testament that ‘folly is bound up in the heart of a child, and
the rod of correction shall drive it away (Corcoran 1930, p. 206). This attitude introduces the
concept of ‘malleability’, allowing religious orders, and later the modern state (whose role
will be discussed below), to ‘manipulate the future’ through the ‘reconceptualisation’ of
childhood as ‘a ‘blank slate’, upon which the future can be written’ (Smith, 2012, p.28). As
Illich (1971) argues:
Only by segregating human beings in the category of children could we ever get them to submit to the
authority of a school master.
(Illich 1971, in Oswell 2013, p. 117)
Curriculum, knowledge and the nature of knowledge
Curriculum is a body of knowledge encompassed within a certain framework
designed for teaching and learning, whether the knowledge is cognitive, skills-based or
dispositional (Scott 2014). Therefore, the substance, or central dimension, of a curriculum,
seems to be knowledge in all its forms and meeting all of the human dimensions. However,
the nature of knowledge and its various components is quite a complex area of study which
has occupied many philosophers and education theorists from Ancient Greece to Post modern
times. Briefly, Truncellito (2007) explains that the mostly agreed upon, and concise,
definition of knowledge would be that of ‘justified true belief’ (p. 3. online, accessed 15
September 2014). Empirical evidence, reasoning and our sensory perceptions would be the
preferred methods to acquire knowledge but this remains very complex as a belief might be
true without being empirically or reasonably justified, or could be false although it has been
empirically or reasonably justified. Scientific enquiry is a good example of this dilemma as it
is bound by strict rules and based on empirical data and observation, but what is deemed true

6. 6 | P a g e
one day can be proved wrong two decades later. Despite a ‘justified true belief’ established
on legitimate grounds, these grounds can subsequently prove to be false or at least
incomplete. Religious belief is probably one area where belief is the least based on human
reasoning or evidence, and yet it has been declared as being true and justified, while being an
important part of the fabric of Western education to this day. Until recently, at least in
Ireland, religion was placed over science as exemplified by the words of Rev. T. J. Corcoran:
Trustworthy development of the Sciences, their exposition, their utilisation, their verification, cannot
be secured if the limited light of human reason, while engaged in exploring those bodies of truths
which it attains by its own powers and energies, were not to hold in very great reverence as is fitting
the unerring and uncreated light of Divine Intelligence.
(Corcoran 1930, p. 208)
‘Legitimate’ knowledge and curriculum rationales
As Scott (2014) points out, defining curriculum as a knowledge building activity does
not tell us what knowledge should be included or excluded from the curriculum, and even
more importantly, who is responsible for this decision and on what basis (p. 14). Once the
hurdle of defining what constitutes knowledge has been successfully accomplished, one
needs to select what knowledge is seen as legitimate, and what knowledge is not, hence
establish the principles on which the curriculum will rest. Regardless of the type of
knowledge-building activity, i.e. cognitive, skill-based or dispositional, the selection of
legitimate knowledge requires a rationale, that is a justified reason which supports its
inclusion or exclusion from the curriculum. In order to do so, it is important, as Scott (2014)
argues, to ‘determine what that knowledge is and how it can be constituted’. For instance,
whether it is understood to be determinate (one truth exists), rational (no opposing
explanation), impersonal (objective), verificationist (based on observation and empirical data)
or predictive (event and phenomena can be generalised) (pp. 16-17). These types of
knowledge are ‘fundamentally different’ to socially constructed knowledge, ‘which is
stratified, open and has ontological depth’; in other words, subjective (Ibid. p. 17). However,
as stated above and reaffirmed by Young (2014):
‘Even truth in the mathematical sciences is no more than ‘the best knowledge we have so far’. All
knowledge, however reliable, is always challengeable because it is no more than our best attempt to
make sense of that which is external to us – the real world. Hence, it is in the ‘domain of possibility’,
not the ‘domain of certainty’.
(Young 2014, p. 10)
The individuals in charge of defining a curriculum rationale ‘should’ take these types of
knowledge into consideration whilst making a choice about what knowledge should be, or
not, included in the curriculum. Once knowledge is selected, there will remain the choice of
methods, i.e. pedagogy, and the assessment procedures used for its delivery and its
evaluation. Curriculum design is a highly subjective exercise dependent on the place and the
time in which it is being designed, and most importantly on the existing power structures in
one given society, which will strongly influence what will be taught and to what end. This is
where the concept of the curriculum as contextually, socially and culturally constructed takes

7. 7 | P a g e
on its full meaning and how the role of powerful groups within society is determinant in
validating knowledge (Gleeson 2010).
Birth of the nation state and the curriculum
During the first half of the 19th
century and the start of the industrial revolution, the
power residing in the family structure moved towards a centralised system of governance,
which subordinates the family to its power, whilst making it an instrument and object of
power and knowledge, serving the new political structure of the modern State (Oswell 2013,
p.98). Michel Foucault, French philosopher of the 20th
century, analyses the genealogy of the
modern state and introduces the term ‘governmentality’. Resulting from the semantic link of
‘govern’ and ‘mentality’, governmentality refers to the tactics of government in order to
govern and influence its subjects. At the time, ‘government’ was understood to include:
…problems of self-control, guidance for the family and for children, management of the
household, directing the soul, etc. For this reason, Foucault defines government as conduct, or,
more precisely, as "the conduct of conduct" and thus as a term which ranges from "governing
the self" to "governing others".
(Lemke, 2010, p. 50-51)
Indeed, the 19th
century sees the emergence of several measures and techniques as means of
control of the populations, whilst providing what Oswell (2013) refers to as ‘supervised
freedom’ (p.98). The use of statistics allows the state to generate an overview of its
population and of its economic potential; the ‘population’ becomes an entity in its own right,
‘subject to its own laws and processes’ (Smith 2012, p.27). Looney (2014) links back the
current need for evidence in policy-making to the development of statistics and
measurements in the 19th
century (slide 3). The rise of science and of the humanities during
the Enlightenment period also generates a new body of knowledge which in turn creates
‘experts’ in various fields, devaluating the authority of the family and its subordination to this
new wealth of knowledge, consecrated through the curriculum and the education of the
‘malleable child’, referred above as the ‘blank slate’ on which a new future can be written.
The institutionalised education of the masses regardless of social class, allows the modern
nation-state to forge its identity and unity through a harmonised popular culture, serving the
nationalistic agenda.
Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, explains that schools are the ideal site for this ‘social
conditioning’ producing what Bourdieu calls the concept of ‘habitus’, which can be defined
as ‘people’s attachment to a nation as learned and habituated’ to the expense of other
minority cultures (Farrell 2010, p. 108). Literacy is also intrinsically linked to the
development of the nation state as its geographical boundaries are reinforced by the
boundaries of languages ‘created or crystallised by literacy’ (McKenzie 2000, p. 214). The
curriculum, teaching management methods and evaluation are seen by Foucault as some
examples of disciplinary technologies, which Cannella (1999) defines as the ‘formal
techniques and operations that create human bodies as objects to be moulded’ (p. 40). Hewitt
(2014) referring to contemporary issues in assessment methods and Foucault, talks about
‘panopticism’ as a disciplinary mechanism, that ‘must improve the exercise of power by
making it lighter, more rapid, more effective, a design of subtle coercion for a society to
come’ (slide 17). According to Foucault, the control and production of docile bodies require

8. 8 | P a g e
standards of normality, which rest on the dominant discourse of the time. Discourses (i.e.
ways of thinking and producing meaning) are ‘normalising’; in other words, when a discourse
is seen as ‘truth’ by a majority of the population, it becomes the norm. Against this norm, we
then determine what is ‘abnormal’, or as Foucault also calls it, ‘reason’ vs ‘folly’ or in the
context of this essay, legitimate vs. illegitimate knowledge.
Curriculum rationale and the Irish historical context
The historical context and the development of Irish Education in the 20th
century is
quite different from other mainland European countries and results, in Gleeson’s opinion, in
the absence of a ‘well developed and coherent’ curriculum rationale at secondary level, on
which to base policy-making (2011, p. 18). While the 19th
century saw the birth and
development of the modern state with its direct involvement in education, new political and
social values as well as a new conception of childhood, Ireland, under British rule, remained
at the periphery and quite unaffected by these economic, political and social changes.
Coolahan (1981) notes that ‘influenced by its prevailing political philosophy of laissez-faire’
England did not involve the state in education fully until the Education Act of 1870 (p. 3).
Whereas the rest of Europe experienced a growth in secularism as a result of state
involvement, religious orders were still in control of Irish education and tensions between
them were palpable. The politics of cultural assimilation of the British empire and the
enforcement of the penal laws in the 17th
century, preventing Irish Catholics to go abroad in
search of a Catholic education or setting up their own schools, resulted in the development of
‘underground’ schools referred to as ‘hedge schools’ and a ‘fight for survival’ encouraged by
the Irish Catholic Church (Coolahan 1981, p. 9). The fierce battle between the protestant elite
using schooling as a means to spread their faith and English as the main language of
instruction, and the resistance of the Irish Catholic population, created a climate of
proselytism and distrust resulting in the development of a segregated education system (Ibid,
pp. 8-9). In 1831, and in a last attempt to unify the Irish school structure with a view to regain
control, the national school system was set up under the control of a state board where all
churches were represented and actively involved as the state relied heavily on the existing
infrastructure of religious school networks. Both Catholics and Protestants wanted to ensure
that ‘their’ young would not be at risk of proselytism and that funding would be equally
distributed. Although originally based on secularism, the school system, under pressure from
the various religious organisations, reverted back to denominational education within the next
twenty years. Brennan (1996) argues that although the three main Churches were against the
secularist project, the Irish Catholic Church was the most strongly opposed to the idea of
secular education and with the support and influence of the Vatican, through its main
representative Archbishop Cullen, endeavoured to have a separate education for Catholics,
that is at primary, secondary and third level, but also in teacher training colleges (p. 87). As
O’Donoghue (1998) argues: ‘by the 1920s, Ireland was one of the few countries where the
Catholic Church was satisfied with the school system’ (p. 140). In terms of curriculum
design:
The state, through the National Board and, after independence through the Department of Education,
maintained control over the curriculum of national schools. Further, the Board published most of the
textbooks used in the schools and retained the right of sanction on any other books proposed. The
books tended to endorse the prevailing political and social orthodoxy and value system while being

9. 9 | P a g e
careful to avoid hurting denominational sensitivities. They also included a great deal of factual and
‘useful’ information along utilitarian lines […]. The main aim of education policy was literacy and
numeracy.
(Coolahan 1981, p. 7)
The State never had to devise a philosophy of education because it limited its role to
providing ‘facts and useful information’ and ensure that masses could read, write and count.
The rationale for this type of curriculum was instrumentalist, in other words, the contents of
the curriculum were directly linked to the objectives of that curriculum, i.e. increase literacy
and numeracy amongst the masses in order to increase their employability (Scott 2014, p.
19). The philosophy of education that Irish education policy lacks according to Gleeson
(2010), that is, the ‘clear goal of enabling pupils to develop a philosophy of life, a world view
or a well-grounded set of values’ was left to the various religious orders, such as the Ursuline
Sisters or the Christian Brothers on the Catholic side, still in control of the majority of Irish
Secondary Schools today (p. 18). This status-quo between the British, and then Irish state,
and the various religious groups, prevented the former from having to think about a
philosophy of education as this was taken care of by the Church. Still today, the inculcation
of morals and values are inextricably linked to religious instruction.
Early 20th
century, the National Curriculum was brought more into line with European
practice, introducing new subjects such as Kindergarten (based on Froebel’s theory that
children should learn through play), manual instruction, singing and cooking, and embracing
a heuristic style and child-centred methods (Walsh 2004, p. 4). However, this new approach
to curriculum was short-lived as Ireland gained its independence in 1922 and with it the
stronghold of Christian doctrine linked to nationalist revival regained total control of the
education system. While other European states might have evolved in their curriculum
rationale and conceptions of childhood, Ireland remained trapped in a theocratic paradigm
until 1962, followed by an economic one.
Philosophy of Education and the Curriculum
Our current technical approach to curriculum is argued by some to be partly the result
of intellectual poverty, which would have facilitated the ideology of technology and the ‘cult
of relevance’ (Gleeson 2010, p. 12). This poverty, resulting from an anti-intellectualism
movement, and encouraged by state officials and the Church, fostered a lack of creativity and
criticality in Irish curriculum design and pedagogical methods to this day, allowing the
economists to ‘play the philosopher king because there is so little challenge to the dominant
orthodoxy’ (Matthews 1985, in Gleeson 2010, p. 15). Indeed, the official definition of
curriculum is ‘the list of those subjects in which instruction is given to the pupils of the
school in courses approved by the Minister’ or otherwise referred to as a ‘table of
contents’(Ibid 2010, pp. 93-94). This definition does not leave much room to philosophy.
The Free State of 1922 relied on the primary and secondary school network of the
Catholic Church; the state financed, but did not provide, education, which was the
responsibility of the school patron, i.e. the local bishop or parish priest, as well as the hiring
of the school principal and of teachers. The objectives of the state coincided with those of the
Church and as Ryan (1984) describes it, it was ‘de Valera’s dream [of a] traditional,

10. 10 | P a g e
conservative, well-integrated, religious people dominated by the twin influences of
nationalism and Catholicism’ (in Gleeson 201, p. 17). The main purpose of the primary and
secondary curricula was to serve the interests of the Church in its pursuit for the ‘salvation of
souls’ and of the state in the reshaping of ‘national consciousness through a linguistic and
cultural revival’ (O’Donoghue 1998, p.143). History was seen as a key subject to promote
nationalism, while reflecting a ‘Catholic spirit and outlook’ placing the Church in its rightful
place as ‘the driving force in all civilisations and progress’ (O’Callaghan 2011, p. 5). Rev.
T.J. Corcoran, UCD Professor and main architect of the secondary school curriculum, clearly
expressed his disgust for secularist education and warned against false philosophies of
Education devised by Kant, Rousseau, Durkheim, Froebel or Dewey, advocating naturalistic
pedagogies, which Corcoran saw as contrary to Catholic principles of education:
Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin
and of grace, and relying on the sole powers of nature, is unsound. Such, generally speaking, are those
modern systems bearing various names, which appeal to a pre tended self-government and
unrestrained freedom on part of the child, and which diminish, or even suppress the teacher's authority
and action, attributing to the child an exclusive primacy of initiative and an activity independent of
any higher law, natural or divine, in the work of his education.
(Corcoran 1930, p. 205)
Catholic tradition applied to the ‘theory and practice of education’ was to guide every
teacher’s work, who should ‘bring into full conformity with the Catholic faith all that is
taught in literature, in sciences, and above all in philosophy (Ibid p. 210). The Catholic
Church, with the connivance of the state, ensured that education for both teachers and pupils
remained one-sided and discouraged ‘the development of a questioning approach’ to
education, where reading for pleasure was seen as a ‘waste of time, unless it was to help pass
an examination or get a job’, (O’Donoghue 1998, p. 152). Presently, Gleeson (2010) quotes
Sugrue (1997) noting that ‘Irish primary teachers are [still] characterised by a ‘widespread
anti-intellectualism where “docile bodies” and “docile minds” appear to be the object of the
system’ (p. 16). Michel Foucault applied the concepts of self-governance and the production
and control of ‘docile bodies and minds’ to the nation state’s political and economic
strategies, but it is fair to say that these strategies probably date back further and were used
by various types of political and/or religious organisations as is demonstrated here. The
Catholic Church, in this case, precedes the nation-state in its use of controlling methods to
ensure full obedience of its subjects’ body and mind. For a very long time, the only
philosophical underpinning of education in Ireland seemed to have been concerned with the
after-life and the salvation of the soul, closely followed by the practical need for education:
find employment. The rise of the mercantile approach to education from the 1960s onwards
did not challenge the existing Catholic philosophy of education. The new focus on the
economy was not seen as a threat to the Catholic ideals as the ‘quite diverse directions of
rationality and emotion [..] are so finely balanced that one never quite succeeds in dominating
the other’ (Gleeson 2010, p. 17). Probably a good example of dialectical dualism; the
economists ensure the marketability of Irish graduates while religion provides them with a
‘philosophy of life […] or a well-grounded set of values’ (Ibid p. 18). Over half of secondary
schools are still owned by religious organisations and have a religious ethos. Concerning
primary education, ninety-six per cent of them are also owned by religious orders, the
greatest majority by the Catholic Church (Coolahan 2012, p. 29). The primary curriculum is

11. 11 | P a g e
an integrated curriculum, which allows the patrons to teach every subject through a religious
lens as illustrated by this extract from the guidelines on religious education in the Primary
Curriculum:
The Primary School Curriculum (1999) is founded on the principle of the integration of
learning: “For the young child, the distinctions between subjects are not relevant: what is more
important is that he or she experiences a coherent learning process that accommodates a
variety of elements. It is important, therefore, to make connections between learning in
different subjects.” Teachers will recognise the potential for valuable links between spiritual, moral
and religious education and all other areas of the curriculum.
(education.ie, p. 2, online, accessed 25 September 2014)
Although in practice, the child-centred approach of the 1971 Primary Curriculum reflects the
naturalistic education theories and pedagogical practices of Durckeim, Rousseau and Dewey,
the philosophy of education remains permeated with religious ideology, whereby moral and
ethical values can only be derived from a belief in God (Ibid, p. 1). In the 1999 Primary
Curriculum, for instance, the spiritual dimension of the child is listed as the first dimension to
‘nurture’, preceding his/her ‘moral, cognitive, emotional, imaginative, aesthetic, social and
physical’ dimensions (NCCA 1999, p. 14, online, accessed 25 September 2014).
The future substance of curriculum
Contemporary curriculum discourse in in a state of flux in Ireland. The state is now
facing a multicultural population within which minority groups are voicing their objection to
an all-Catholic education. Furthermore, increasing international pressures on the state to
comply with new globalised standards of education, are also challenging the system. In this
era of the ‘knowledge society’, where being literate is no longer limited to reading and
writing but encompasses a wide variety of skills, such as the ability to think, judge and
analyse information critically, ‘sort and incorporate’ relevant data and most importantly, the
capacity to ‘discern whether information is useful or useless’, Ireland needs to react swiftly
(Looney 2008, p. 178). Learning how to learn has become the new focus and the
development of creative and learning skills a priority. However, the current government’s
literacy and numeracy strategy still focuses on basics and is very similar to the 19th
century
educational policy of the British colonial power, that is to teach students to read, write and
count, as these ‘are inextricably linked to employment and economic prosperity’ (DES 2011,
in Lenihan 2014, slide 12).
Nevertheless, in this post-modern ‘cognitive’ revolution, teachers are seen as catalysts
by Hargreaves (2002) and are also required to engage with this learning culture and embrace
the lifelong learning phenomena (Ibid. p.179). The whole culture of Irish schooling is in need
of change; religion as the only philosophical underpinning is being challenged while the anti-
intellectualism sentiment amongst teachers identified by Sugrue (1997) and the teaching of
the ‘docile mind’ needs to be eliminated. Zuffiaure (2007) believes that modern schooling
from ‘didactic to natural scientific rationality […] is drawing to a close’ to the benefit of post-
modern practices, encompassing new regimes of teaching and learning in which ‘older
political and religious practices […] remaining in various guises [and] representing sectional
interests and conceptions of control’ do no longer have their place (p. 139). In his opinion,
curriculum practice should move away from asking ‘what should students know’ to ‘what

12. 12 | P a g e
should they become’ (p. 146). However, what they become might depend on what they know.
‘Critical thinking’ is the new catchphrase and the NCCA is aware of the changes that are
required (Looney 2008). The Key Skills curriculum for the secondary senior cycle identify
students’ learning priorities (Ibid 2008, p. 185). However, those ‘sectional interests’,
Zuffiaure (2007) refers to, are still very influent in Irish society and generations of practising
teachers are the direct result of the type of education the NCCA is now trying to change, i.e.
instructional, transmissive, mind-shaping and indoctrinating. Before critical thinking can be
taught, it has to be learned. The whole education system is in need of critical thinking.
Conclusion
The substance of a curriculum is a very complex concept to define, while the
technicality, procedures and rules are quite ‘simple’ to devise. The constant struggle between
these two opposing world views has created and continuously reshaped educational research
and practice. Defining the nature of knowledge, and its legitimacy or illegitimacy has for too
long been controlled by dominant discourses, at the expense of other political, social or
cultural voices. The nationalistic and religious agenda of the Irish nation-state, and later the
economic one, has created a technical and rational education system without a clear
philosophy of education where ‘legitimate’ knowledge served the cause of the nation under
God and of the market. This lack of vision resulted in the inability for teachers and students
to acquire critical skills and intellectual freedom, which have now become paramount to
compete in the knowledge society. I agree with Zuffiaure (2007) when he calls for a ‘new
theory of history that reveals what had been hidden by modernity’ with a view to opening the
‘way for social and political reconstruction’ (p. 148). Looney (2001) is right; technique is
winning out over substance. As Ireland is slowly emerging from a monocultural to a
multicultural society, where old traditions are slowly disappearing and replaced by new ones,
the ‘substance’ of the curriculum must be reinvented. Irish society, through education, needs
to become aware of the fabrication of their recent past by vested power groups and regain
control of their identity through a new perception of reality. Legitimate knowledge and
ethical values must be redefined, leading to a new postmodern Ireland, proud of its past and
present identity but with the ability to question and critique it.

13. 13 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Winter School 2014 – Lectures and Workshops
Edling, S., Guadalupe, F. (2014) ‘Approaching Educational Policies in Sweden from a
Methodological Point of View: Two Case Studies’, International Winter School, 25 Jan,
University of Limerick, unpublished.
Hewitt, D. (2014) ‘contemporary issues in assessment’, International Winter School, 25 Jan,
University of Limerick, unpublished.
Lenihan, R. (2014) ‘Conversations about literacy: Research concerning current attitudes
towards the Literacy Strategy and its impact on teaching and learning’, International Winter
School, 25 Jan, University of Limerick, unpublished.
Looney, A. (2014) ‘The emergence of evidence as policy technology’, International Winter
School, 26 Jan, University of Limerick, unpublished.
Sources relating to the Irish context
Brennan, P. (2004) ‘In Memoriam Paul Brennan’, Etudes irlandaises Numéro Spécial Hors
Série, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion : Villeneuve d’Ascq.
Coolahan, J. (1981) Irish Education: history and structure, Dublin, Institute of Public
Administration.
Coolahan, J., Hussey, C., Kilfeather, F. (2012) The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the
Primary Sector: Report of the Forum’s Advisory Group’ [online], available:
http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Conferences/Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-
Primary-Sector/The-Forum-on-Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector-Report-of-
the-Forums-Advisory-Group.pdf [accessed 15 Dec 2013].
Corcoran, T. (1930) ‘The Catholic Philosophy of Education’, An Irish Quarterly Review,
Vol. 19, No. 74, pp. 199-210.
Education.ie (2014), ‘Religious Education in the Primary Curriculum’, [online], available:
http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Conferences/Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-
Primary-Sector/Patronage-Forum-Submissions-November-2011-/Organisations-November-
2011/Department-of-Religious-Studies-and-Religious-Education-St-Patrick%E2%80%99s-
College-Drumcondra-.pdf, [accessed: 25 September 2014].
Gleeson, J. (2010) Curriculum in Context: Partnership, Power and Praxis in Ireland, Bern,
Peter Lang.
Looney, A. (2001) ‘Curriculum as policy: some implications of contemporary policy studies
for the analysis of curriculum policy, with particular reference to post-primary curriculum
policy in the Republic of Ireland’, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp- 149-162.
Looney, A., Klenowski, V. (2008) ‘Curriculum and assessment for the knowledge society:
interrogating experiences in the Republic of Ireland and Queensland, Australia’, The
Curriculum Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 177-192.

14. 14 | P a g e
NCCA (1999), ‘Primary School Curriculum’, [online], available:
http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/Curriculum/Intro_Eng.pdf, [accessed 25 September].
O’Callaghan, J. (2011) ‘Politics, Policy and History: History Teaching in Irish Secondary
Schools 1922-1970’, Etudes irlandaises, 36-1, pp. 25-41.
O’Donoghue, T. A. (1998) ‘Catholicism and the Curriculum: The Irish Secondary School
Experience, 1992 – 62’, Historical Studies in Education/Revue d’histoire de l’éducation, Vol.
10, No. ½, pp. 140-158.
Walsh, T. (2004), ‘A Historical Overview of our Conceptualisation of Childhood In Ireland
In The Twentieth Century’, [online], available:
http://www.cecde.ie/english/pdf/conference_papers/Our%20Conceptualisation%20Of%20Ch
ildhood%20In%20Ireland.pdf, [accessed 13 September 2014].
International sources
Cannella, G.S. (1999) ‘The Scientific Discourse of Education: predetermining the lives of
others – Foucault, education, and children’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Vol. 1,
No.1, pp. 36-44.
Carr, W., Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action
Research, New York, Routledge Farmer.
Farrell, L. (2010) ‘European Identity: Theories of habitus & cultural capital’, available:
http://www.spr.tcdlife.ie/seperatearticles/xxarticles/theoryidentity.pdf [15/05/2013]
Fontaine, P., F. (2011) ‘What is Dualism, and What is it Not?’ in Lange, A., Meyers, E. M.
and Reynolds, B., Styers, R., eds., Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient
Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
266-269.
Halvorson, M. (2011) ‘Revealing the Technological Irresponsibility in Curriculum Design’,
Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 34-47.
Lemke, T. (2002) ‘Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique, Rethinking Marxism’, A Journal
of Economics, Culture and Society, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 49-64
McCarter, P. K. (2011) ‘Dualism in Antiquity’, in Lange, A., Meyers, E. M. and Reynolds,
B., Styers, R., eds., Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and
the Contemporary World, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19-35.
McKenzie, J. (2000) ‘The Idea of Literacy’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 34, No.
2, pp 209-228.
Oswell, D. (2013) The Agency of Children: From Family to Global Human Rights, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pring, R. (2000) ‘The False Dualism of Educational Research’, Journal of Philosophy of
Education, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 247-260.

15. 15 | P a g e
Scott, D. (2014) ‘Knowledge and the curriculum’, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1,
pp. 14-28.
Smith, K. (2012) ‘Producing Governable Subjects: Images of Childhood old and new’,
Childhood, Vol. 19, pp. 24-37.
The Courier (1957), ‘John Amos Comenius – Apostle of modern education and world
understanding’, [online], available:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000679/067956eo.pdf, [accessed 13 September
2014].
Truncellito, D. A. (2007) Epistemology, [online], available:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo, [accessed 15 September 2014].
Young, M. (2014) ‘What is curriculum and what can it do?’, The Curriculum Journal, Vol.
25, No. 1, pp. 7-13.
Zuffiaure, B. (2007) ‘Education and schooling: from modernity to postmodernity’, Pedagogy,
Culture & Society, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 139-151.