SCANDAL: The Leaving Cert maths reform project: how did it get this far? The new draft curriculum for Leaving Cert maths is a scandal. Large amounts of critical material have been deleted. Students will be left without essential maths skills and will flounder at university level. The proposed changes... must be reversed. Dr Isaac Burke holds a PhD in pure maths and has extensive teaching experience in university and Senior Cycle maths. He has compared the new draft curriculum with the current curriculum. Some of the radical changes to the Higher Level course are as follows: Students will no longer be required to solve equations in algebra, but simply to “justify proposed solutions”. The same new language is applied to the study of calculus and probability: students will be given solutions, and will simply have to check if those solutions are correct. Practically all topics which develop and encourage rigour and depth of thinking have been cut out. Some examples of such are the binomial theorem and discriminants in algebra, the change of base law (for logs), the angle between two lines in coordinate geometry, and p-values in statistics. There are many more. Complex numbers, proof by induction and constructions have been entirely deleted from the course. The topics of financial maths, trigonometry, geometry and hypothesis testing (in statistics) have been reduced down to what is currently on the Ordinary Level syllabus. All the set proofs have been dropped. Students will no longer study the proofs of any theorems/discoveries in maths and will not be required to reproduce any proofs in the exam. Essentially nothing new has been added. The overall result is a curriculum that is gutted of rigour and depth. Essential maths skills and foundations are absent. It will not inspire a love of mathematics. It will not train students to think critically, logically and coherently. If implemented, it will have disastrous consequences for Irish students and Irish society at large. The question is: how did it come to this? How could a 17-member team of so-called “professionals” produce such a document? What was going on in the 20 or so “meetings” of this group that have taken place since September 2024? Why was the alarm not raised sooner? Under the current proposals, students will be deceived into thinking that they are proficient in maths, only to flounder and fail when they enter university and the world of work. This is unconscionable. It is a scandal. We need a strong maths curriculum in Ireland. This curriculum is not fit for purpose. It must be scrapped – and those who proposed it must be held to account.show more

I AGREE WITH DR ISAAC BURKE: IRELAND CANNOT AFFORD FURTHER DILUTION OF MATHEMATICS I strongly agree with the concerns now being raised by Dr Isaac Burke and by other mathematicians about the direction of Leaving Certificate Mathematics. For me, however, this debate has an extraordinary sense of déjà vu. I was publicly raising essentially the same concerns in 2012. At that time I warned about the reduction of important mathematical content and, in particular, the consequences for students progressing to mathematics, engineering, science, technology and other mathematically demanding disciplines. My argument was never against reform. It was against dilution masquerading as reform. What is especially important now is to remember what happened afterwards. Following extensive engagement around these issues, including my work and discussions with Mary Mitchell O'Connor, the NCCA undertook a substantial review of Applied Mathematics. In 2014, the NCCA Council approved for consultation a Background Paper for the Review of Applied Mathematics. The consultation began in November 2014 and included an online consultation together with focus-group engagement involving universities, mathematics educators, teachers and other stakeholders. The NCCA itself subsequently described this work as examining the development of Applied Mathematics, highlighting good practice at home and abroad, and using evidence-based research to inform the revision of the subject. Official NCCA document: Draft Background Paper and Brief for the Review of Applied Mathematics — For Consultation NCCA source: Consultation report: That work was important because it demonstrated that Ireland did not have to choose between modernising mathematics and preserving mathematical depth. There were much more ambitious possibilities. A strengthened Applied Mathematics curriculum could sit alongside mainstream mathematics. There could also be an additional advanced mathematical pathway for students intending to pursue highly mathematical university courses. Different curricular possibilities could be considered. And these decisions could be informed by international benchmarking rather than by simply reducing mathematical content. That is the direction in which I believed Ireland should have gone. Now compare that intellectual ambition with the debate surrounding the 2026 Draft Leaving Certificate Mathematics Specification. The current NCCA draft is here: The draft Higher/Ordinary Level specification is available directly through that official NCCA page. The consultation runs from 20 August 2026 until 18 November 2026. And the contrast is, in my view, extraordinary. Fourteen years after mathematicians warned about weakening mathematical foundations, we appear to be discussing yet another potential dilution of mathematical depth. Even more seriously, academics who participated in the present development process have themselves raised concerns. Dr Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin publicly stated that she resigned because she believed the draft curricula were not fit for purpose and contained mathematical inaccuracies. Professor Pauline Mellon had previously resigned while expressing concerns about the direction of the work. That should surely cause us to stop and think. How have we moved from a discussion in 2014 involving: international benchmarking, evidence-based research, stronger Applied Mathematics, alternative curricular structures, and the possibility of greater mathematical depth to a position in 2026 where respected mathematicians are resigning from a development process because they have such profound concerns about the resulting drafts? I find that extremely difficult to understand. As somebody who has spent decades teaching mathematics in higher education, I can attest to the consequences when mathematical foundations are weakened at school level. The mathematics does not disappear because it is removed from the school curriculum. The problem is simply transferred to the university. Students then arrive in higher education expected to undertake engineering, computing, mathematics, physics, statistics, economics, AI or data science while simultaneously having to repair weaknesses in algebra, functions, calculus and mathematical reasoning. That is profoundly unfair to students. And it is potentially disastrous for STEM. The issue is even more important today than it was in 2012. We are entering an era dominated by: artificial intelligence, machine learning, data science, linear algebra, probability, statistics, optimisation, computational modelling, advanced engineering and quantitative science. These disciplines do not require less mathematics. They require more mathematical sophistication. Mathematics is cumulative. Arithmetic supports algebra. Algebra supports functions. Functions support calculus. Linear algebra, calculus, probability and statistics underpin enormous parts of modern science, technology, engineering and AI. You cannot continually remove pieces from the foundation and expect the structure above it to become stronger. This is why I strongly support the concerns now being articulated by Dr Isaac Burke. And it is why I believe the 2014 NCCA Background Paper should be brought back into this debate and read alongside the 2026 draft. The comparison is illuminating. We had already reached a point more than a decade ago where serious consideration was being given to how Ireland could increase mathematical opportunity and depth. Why, fourteen years later, are we again debating whether fundamental mathematics should be weakened? My own commitment to mathematics and mathematics education extends across several decades in higher education, and in 2025 I was deeply honoured to receive the Ramanujan Memorial Award for Excellence in Academic Leadership. My position has remained consistent throughout. I support innovation. I support modern applications. I support problem-solving. I support reform. But none of those things requires us to sacrifice mathematical depth. Ireland needs better mathematics, not less mathematics. The 2014 NCCA work demonstrated that much more ambitious alternatives were possible. Before proceeding any further with the present proposals, I believe policymakers should go back, examine that earlier work, examine the international evidence again, listen carefully to the mathematicians who are now raising the alarm, and ask a very simple question: Are we genuinely strengthening Irish mathematics education — or are we continuing a process of dilution that some of us warned about as far back as 2012? For the future of Irish STEM education, that question matters enormously. #Mathematics #STEM #LeavingCertificate #MathsEducation #EducationReform #ProjectMaths #AppliedMathematics #Calculus #LinearAlgebra #Engineering #ArtificialIntelligence #HigherEducation #NCCA #Ireland

History tells that there is only one reason they change a curriculum... Because of the demographics of who is achieving and who is failing on the current math curriculum. Publish those facts and you'll have your answer.

The dumbing down is being taken to the limit.

Coached school leaving maths across 3 countries for 20+ years. Now lecturing in Data Science. Agree with this assessment. Currently students from some other countries have stronger Maths foundations entering third level. More depth NOT less is needed.

Perhaps the most serious question now is whether judicial review has become the only realistic way forward. That is not because judges should decide what should or should not appear in the Leaving Certificate Mathematics curriculum. They plainly should not. Curriculum design belongs principally to those entrusted by law with education policy and curriculum development. But public bodies exercising important statutory functions are themselves subject to law. The case I have been making is therefore fundamentally about process, legality, rationality, evidence and constitutional accountability. When highly qualified mathematicians and mathematics educators raise repeated concerns about mathematical inaccuracies, loss of abstraction and rigour, weakening of algebraic foundations, and inadequate preparation for STEM degrees — and where experts ultimately feel compelled to resign from the development process — a legitimate public-law question arises: Was the decision-making process itself lawful, rational, fair and properly informed? A judicial review could potentially examine questions such as: • whether relevant expert evidence was genuinely considered rather than merely received; • whether material objections concerning mathematical correctness and STEM preparedness were adequately addressed; • whether relevant considerations were taken into account and irrelevant considerations excluded; • whether the eventual decisions were supported by a rational evidential basis; • whether the process operated in accordance with the statutory responsibilities of the bodies involved; • whether there was meaningful consultation rather than consultation in form only; • whether departures from earlier, extensively researched and internationally benchmarked curriculum proposals were properly explained; • and, at the constitutional level, whether decisions of such profound national educational consequence can be made without adequate mechanisms of accountability. This brings me back to the argument I have already made concerning Article 6 of the Constitution. Public power ultimately derives, under the Constitution, from the people. Delegated administrative authority therefore cannot become effectively insulated from scrutiny merely because the subject matter is technically specialised. Judicial review would not require a court to determine whether calculus, linear algebra, probability, abstraction or advanced algebra should receive a particular number of teaching hours. The much narrower question would be whether the public decision-makers charged with making those choices acted within their legal powers and reached their decisions through a lawful and rational process. There is also an important historical dimension. I raised very similar concerns during the Project Maths reforms in 2012, particularly about the erosion of mathematical depth and the consequences for students progressing into mathematics-intensive STEM programmes. Those concerns were extensively discussed publicly at the time. Following that debate, the NCCA subsequently undertook substantial work on Applied Mathematics. The 2014 background and draft proposals contained, in my view, genuinely ambitious possibilities: Project Maths alongside a substantially strengthened and more advanced mathematical pathway, informed by extensive international benchmarking. Compare the intellectual ambition of those proposals with what is now being debated. That comparison makes the present situation even more difficult to understand. We are not dealing with an unforeseeable problem. Questions about mathematical depth, progression, abstraction and preparation for university STEM have been raised for well over a decade. And now highly respected academics are raising remarkably similar concerns again. At some point the issue ceases to be simply: “Which curriculum do we prefer?” and becomes: “Was this public decision-making process lawful, evidence-based, rational and constitutionally accountable?” If the normal expert and consultative mechanisms have failed to resolve that question, then regrettably judicial review may now be the mechanism through which it has to be examined. The objective would not be to have the courts write the mathematics curriculum. It would be to ensure that those entrusted with writing it cannot disregard mathematical expertise, relevant evidence or lawful decision-making standards without accountability. For something as consequential as the mathematical preparation of an entire generation — particularly students entering engineering, computing, artificial intelligence, data science, economics, physics and the mathematical sciences — that is not an unreasonable standard to demand.

Please also shout loudly about all the already reformed Science subjects and the 40% project component the AAC of which nobody neither student or teacher are clear about what is required. 6th years currently left to deal with this issue now, very stressful for them.

The dumbing down is done on purpose to be “inclusive “

The dummying down of the people

They gonna DEI the shit out of anything difficult. We are going through the first stage of civilisation decline.

The lefty educationalists and sociologists want to destroy the present system and they are at it little by little. What is quite bizarre and worrying is that FF/FG are letting them

It’s been dumb-down for our illegal economic migrants. Our children will pay the price for this madness.

Have to agree with Isaac on this, I believe your behaviour on previous matters will prevent people following you on this matter. It will also entrench those wishing to push the syllabus through. You need to work on your attitude on engaging with those who don't share your pov

Can you address the matter of time: a loss of 12-25% in teaching time (down to 180hrs); for a course that was previously too big (PM course ~15% too long); and with an AAC to prepare for (allocate 10% time?). What should be removed for a feasible syllabus? Find ~40%, please

Schools are in crisis Kids are simply not learning the way we did What’s the solution? Invest in robust teaching strategies and upskill teachers? Nah let’s dumb down the curriculum

Some of the responses here suggest the full curriculum has been dumbed down for years.

Why is this happening?

You guys should do a programme for homeschooling

You're supposed to say BREAKING. Your last line made me laugh. Held to account? You who harassed your female boss at a school event and spent the last few years ducking the consequences of your actions have the sheer audacity to claim that someone else should be held to account?

It started years ago. As a Primary teacher (retired) I saw the dumbing down of the maths curriculum. As an oldie doing the primary cert before secondary we were "pickled" in mental arithmetic.Excellent brain computing.

Its the dumbing down the intelligence of our kids ,deliberately,to satisfy the mass influx of migrants . Evil

@243_cal Increasingly feminised curriculum. Puzzle solving is a more pronounced male trait. That led to boys performing well in maths, physics etc. Solution, remove the quant, and make it something you can learn by rote and regurgitate

This is for lower IQ students imported from Africa and South Asia so they won't feel inferior to the native students, Africa isn't a sh**hole for nothing.

As with all LC revamps it is there to dumb it down and move to home projects for a significant portion of the marks, thus allowing equalisation of scores and removing the power of the exam to distinguish between weak maths students, like myself and gifted individuals, all in the name of equality of outcomes. Shocking stuff

@Jklunden Well done Isaac A fantastic family You are all children of Eire

🚨 IRELAND DISMANTLED MATHEMATICAL DEPTH — NOW THE RESULTS ARE COMING HOME The latest PISA mathematics results should trigger a serious national reckoning. Ireland’s mathematics performance has moved from roughly: 2012: 501 2015: 504 2018: 500 2022: 492 2025: 480 That is a clear long-term deterioration. What makes this especially troubling is that Ireland was already confronting these questions more than a decade ago. In 2014, the NCCA’s draft/background review of Applied Mathematics examined internationally benchmarked approaches, including models used in the UK, and explored stronger advanced mathematics provision alongside Project Maths. The issue was not whether problem-solving should be taught. Of course it should. The issue was whether Ireland could pursue accessibility and applied problem-solving without sacrificing mathematical depth. That meant preserving and strengthening areas such as algebra, calculus, vectors, matrices, formal mathematical reasoning and the advanced foundations required for STEM. Those stronger pathways were not ultimately implemented in that form. Now the data are moving unmistakably in the wrong direction. Yes, Ireland remains above the OECD average. But that is not the question we should be asking. The real question is: Why has Irish mathematics performance been declining, and why would we consider any further dilution of mathematical depth when the evidence is already warning us to go in the opposite direction? Ireland needs a serious review of mathematics curriculum policy since Project Maths, including the 2014 NCCA proposals and the advanced mathematics pathways that were considered but never fully realised. We were warned. The results are now coming home. #PISA2025 #Mathematics #ProjectMaths #NCCA #STEM #Education #Ireland

Possibly making maths more inclusive for all our new Irish citizens?

@gerheffernan23 Share this immediately folks 🇮🇪☘️

So the whole process is about dumbing down the subject ?

How about f uck off ➕

Do you still have a job? Like the rest of your family that are un-employable

Would you please set up a complete homeschooling resource for secondary. I no longer trust the schools with their WHO mandated sex ed and pro trans groups visits.

The Burkes have turned themselves into some kind of all purpose NGO? Stand by for drama!

It's basically a woke update, can't have all the dumb dumb emigrants feeling inferior at math

Obviously to make it easier for Migrants to get into college