The agricultural education debate

Call for broader availability at 2nd level

Continuing the debate on the value of an agricultural education, this week we publish the views of William Considine, PRO of the Irish Agricultural Science Teachers Association and teacher in Bridgetown Vocational College in Co Wexford.

The recent debate in Recruitment and Opportunities, beginning with the letter from ‘Disillusioned ag graduate', together with your recent lead describing agricultural education in the Netherlands, poses what I feel is a very important question for our educational system. That is, should the study of agriculture at second and third level be confined to those who can be directly employed in agriculture? Your ‘Disillusioned Ag graduate' clearly thinks the answer is yes. Those who direct our second level system appear to agree with him.

Agricultural science and rural science disappeared from the junior cycle of post-primary schools many years ago. Now the new revised Junior Certificate science syllabus has dropped the remnant options to study food science or horticulture. The result is that Irish 12 to 16 year-olds now get no opportunity to learn anything about agriculture or agricultural issues.

In making this change, those who make these decisions are going even farther than ‘Disillusioned Ag graduate' and deciding that no young person, even those who will be employed in agriculture, will get the opportunity to study agriculture in their most formative years.

At Leaving Cert level there is only limited provision, with fewer than 5% of 16 to 18 year-olds studying the 35 year old agricultural science syllabus. Even so, there are those in the Department of Education who would like to see the end of this as well. This focuses on a broader question. Should the study of a subject be confined to those who can reasonably expect to find employment in that subject? Should the provision or uptake of a subject such as biology or economics depend on the employment opportunities in these areas or are there areas that should be part of the knowledge base of everyone and, therefore, a fundamental part of an appropriate education for the 21st century?

Should agricultural knowledge be included in such a basic general knowledge base?

Is it desirable that future citizens have greater knowledge and awareness about how plants and animals are cared for and managed, how food is grown and produced, how the environment is affected by agriculture and how agriculture has potential to produce energy to replace fossil fuels?

I believe the answer must be yes. The Dutch education system also clearly answers yes but our Department of Education obviously disagrees.

The Dutch are world leaders in agriculture and horticulture, yet their land area is only a fraction of ours. What have they that we haven't? Could it be an appreciation that agriculture is knowledge-based every bit as much as it is land-based? The Dutch provide their people with an education-system which values and promotes agricultural knowledge at all levels. The Dutch probably know that the three ingredients of an effective and efficient agriculture are land, people and knowledge, the one in least supply being the limiting factor. They are aware that a healthy agricultural sector also requires citizens and consumers who understand agricultural issues. Meanwhile, in Ireland, further cuts in the agricultural knowledge base are contemplated. There is constant talk of the need to reduce the number of subjects in the Leaving Cert to make way for plans to introduce new subjects such as physical education and civics. The agricultural economics subject is already officially for the chop and the new agricultural science syllabus, that cost over €150,000 to produce, has been left to wither on a shelf in the Department of Education for the past 10 years. Meanwhile, "Disillusioned Ag graduate" wants the number of third level places reduced to the point where a job is guaranteed. This contraction and degradation of the agricultural knowledge base must be resisted and reversed. For educational reasons, for cultural reasons, and for strategic economic reasons, the study of agriculture and agricultural issues at all levels is valid and worthwhile and should be available to greater numbers.

Opportunities for 12 to 16-year-olds to learn about agricultural matters should be restored. The new Leaving Cert agricultural science syllabus should be introduced and promoted and good students should continue to study agriculture at third level. This will give rise to a potential virtuous circle: increased agricultural knowledge leading to increased awareness and efficiency and effectiveness in use of the land base, leading to increased employment. It used to be said by ‘nay sayers' that if the Dutch had Ireland they would feed the world and if the Irish had Holland they would sink it. If we allow our agricultural knowledge base to contract much further, they may be proved right.

Curriculum content is the basis of future citizens' knowledge and focus and is highly political. Numerous groups are constantly lobbying to get their own interests into school curricula.

Those who want to see agricultural matters given more prominence need to make their concerns known to the Minister for Education. He is currently seeking views. Let him know!