Sir, – Frank Milling lists many reasons to endorse junior cycle reform ("Junior cycle reforms are a badly needed corrective", Opinion, January 9th). And there are indeed many wonderful aspects to the new junior cycle, especially regarding critical literacy and its consequence, independent learning, from which all students, especially those from working-class backgrounds, could benefit. However, as a secondary English teacher with first, second and third-year classes all now engaged in the new junior cycle English course, I take issue with Mr Milling on a number of points, just two of which I'll raise here.
First, he states that reforms will aid those vulnerable working class students currently falling by the wayside. Mr Milling should broaden his vision. These same reforms have jettisoned the foundation-level exam. The most academically vulnerable students of all, whatever their social class, are being tasked with attempting work far beyond their comprehension and composition abilities, in the ordinary-level exam. We are letting these students down.
Second, nowhere does Mr Milling directly address the core issue of assessment. His implication is that summative teacher assessment of students is an intrinsic part of the reform he advocates, but nowhere does Milling satisfactorily demonstrate its necessity. And it isn’t necessary. All the formative assessment, experiential learning and other benefits of the new junior cycle reform can be reaped without it.
My reason for not wishing to take part in the final assessment of my students is based on a simple truth: in their lives beyond the classroom, teenagers choose disciplines that exact the best from them. They have mentors in these activities; their sports coaches, dance instructors, and so on. But the victories or medals won are valued precisely because they’re awarded not by these advocates but by unknown referees or adjudicators. The Government should acknowledge the key impasse around assessment is due to their desire to save money – money that could be used to aid those working-class male students for whom Mr Milling expresses concern.
It is not so simple a dichotomy, as Mr Milling centrally contends, of choosing between either retaining the status quo or bringing in from the margins vulnerable students. We can bring in reform that also listens to the majority of secondary teachers and that trusts that they have the best interests of their students at heart. And they continue to aver, under extreme pressure, that external summative assessment is best for students, who themselves (whatever the final outcome of this dispute) will always know the difference between a mentor’s bualadh bos and endorsement from a third party. – Yours, etc,
CONOR NORTON,
Stillorgan, Co Dublin.
Sir, – Frank Milling writes, “Sweden’s slide in the Pisa rankings came about due to a lack of resources, poor teacher remuneration and a burdensome workload, not because of reforms”.
Had he replaced the words “Sweden” with “Ireland”, and “not” with “and”, he would have neatly described why the new junior cycle reforms will fail. – Yours, etc,
SEAN KEAVENY,
Castleknock, Dublin 15.