Sir, – I want to reply to comments made by Prof Jim Gleeson in relation to my letter on Junior Cycle changes (Letters, December 2nd).
Jim suggests that the changes mooted for the Junior Cycle are “necessary and progressive” and that my suggestion that the changes are “motivated by financial considerations is wide of the mark”.
While the changes in themselves might be “progressive”, and there is no shortage of evidence from the rest of Europe to question this claim, their mode of introduction was far from progressive and involved no debate with stakeholders in the context of Ireland and no effort was made to relate with teachers as progressive curriculum makers – it was presented as a straightforward top-down reform by former minister for education Ruaírí Quinn.
All I can say to the suggestion that the changes are not in any way related to “financial considerations” is that a quick re-read of the Lisbon Agreement and GATS agreement might remind Jim that education has been singled out as a lucrative public service for exploitation by corporate interests and that Ireland is a signatory to this. – Yours, etc, GERALDINE MOONEY SIMMIE Lecturer in Education, University of Limerick. Sir, – As any teacher worth their salt knows, student assessment is an essential part of the job, and it serves many purposes. Determining whether or not the individual “passes” or “fails” is only one, and arguably the least, of these.
Assessment allows the instructor to give the student feedback and suggestions for improvement; it lets both the student and the teacher gauge progress, and can alert to potential problems or difficulties before they become critical; it can offer encouragement and additional incentive to work that bit harder where needed; and it is thus a core part of the dialogue that all educators engage in with their students.
Like the proverbial iceberg, the public perception of the teacher’s roles tends to focus on the more visible parts.
The numbers of pupils who gain university places is often seen as an indicator of our own professional abilities, ignoring the often harder-won achievements of getting less promising students to achieve better than they might otherwise have done.
Perhaps if there was more explicit recognition of the broader role of student assessment, the contribution it makes to pedagogy as a whole, and the responsibilities it places on the part of the instructor to get it right, then at least some of the causes of the present dispute could be alleviated. – Yours, etc. DARIUS BARTLETT Department of Geography University College Cork.
Sir, – Tom Collins (Opinion & Analysis, December 3rd) argues how it is standard practice for third-level teachers to design their own course, teach and examine it and why should second-level teachers fear the same process.
Perhaps it hasn’t struck him that maybe it’s not fear at all, but the realisation that Irish universities languish in the lower strata of top colleges in the world .
Maybe rigorous external examination is exactly what our universities need to ensure that current standards will increase and they can hobnob with Harvard et al! – Yours, etc, AILEEN HOOPER, Stoneybatter, Dublin 7.