A chara, – There is, of course, merit in some of the 10 changes recommended by Ivan Yates for Irish education (Education Today, February 14th) but unfortunately whatever merit there is, is undermined by the author’s underlying view that the role of education is to serve the needs of the so-called free market.
He writes about rationalisation, as in the consolidation of small rural schools. He talks about incentivising good teaching with financial reward — as if good teachers could be bought. He mentions the critical competitive advantage we have with a natural English-speaking workforce but uses this, not to support, but to undermine the teaching of Irish as our own unique second national language.
According to Mr Yates, “If both Irish and religious studies were replaced by computer studies/information technology learning, we could greatly enhance economic performance”. So there you have it, the solution to our economic woes, from one of the erstwhile heroes of the Celtic Tiger era!
The Irish education system certainly has loads of issues to deal with, but I really do think that Mr Yates should stick to his bookmaking and leave the book learning and teaching to the educationalists. The great majority of teachers can still take pride in belonging to what has always been one of the noblest of all professions, teaching. – Is mise,
Sir, – An article by Ivan Yates (Education Today, February 14th) contains so many false assumptions and inaccuracies that it would take a similarly long article just to set the record straight.
So let me challenge just two such statements: Mr Yates refers to the “contracted hours” of Irish second-level teachers as 735 hours per annum and compares this to the Netherlands’ 1,695 hours and Britain’s 1,265 hours.
This is an incorrect, inappropriate and misleading comparison in which Mr Yates equates the hours Irish teachers spend teaching in the classroom with the hours Dutch and British teachers spend teaching in the classroom plus the hours they spend carrying out a range of other professional duties such as administrative work, meeting legislative requirements, participating in planning meetings, correcting students’ work, meeting parents, liaising with representatives from outside organisations etc. All of these non-teaching duties are also undertaken by Irish second-level teachers in addition to their 735 hours of teaching.
The true and valid comparison of “contracted” hours for Ireland is contained in the report OECD Education at a Glance 2011. This report states that in Ireland second-level teachers spend 735 hours per annum in the classroom teaching their students compared to 750 hours in the Netherlands and 714 hours in England. The average across OECD countries is 679 hours.
Mr Yates also asserts that teachers’ sick leave arrangements “facilitate up to 21 days absence without medical certification”. In fact the maximum number of uncertified sick days a second-level teacher can take in a school year is seven, and even this is subject to regulations and criteria.
Other assumptions and inaccuracies in Mr Yates’s article include that close to 80 per cent of the education budget is spent on teachers’ salaries and pensions (untrue), the suggestion that Irish teachers do not require pre-entry qualifications (untrue), and an assertion that Irish teachers are “the highest paid” (again untrue).
I recognise that Mr Yates values education and its role in economic recovery. However, it is in everyone’s interest to insist that public debate is based on accurate and up-to-date information. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I welcome Ivan Yates’s belated interest in Irish education. It didn’t seem to occupy his mind too much when he was in politics. He lauds the Finnish education system, but neglects to mention the key strengths of that country’s system. In Finland, schools aren’t ranked against each other, teachers don’t face formal reviews, and students aren’t under intense pressure to get into college. In contrast, Mr Yates recommends league tables for schools, intensive reviews of teachers and prioritising the needs of business over pupils’ welfare. He also ignores the greater social equality that pertains in Finland. Mr Yates neglects to mention that, with a pension of €74,000 last year, he is better paid than almost every teacher in the country. For that money, we surely are entitled to a more cogent analysis of the issues of the day. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – While I somewhat agree with Aonghus Ó hAlmhain’s assertion (February 15th) that mastery of one’s native language is a vital asset of a competent programmer, I disagree that the native language of today’s Ireland is An Ghaeilge.
As both a holder of a degree in Irish and a technology professional, I agree with Ivan Yates’s assertion that technology and Irish should at least be optional subjects in our schools. Both were options for me at school in the North over 25 years ago and I find it regrettable that such models are resisted here still. Exposure to basic programming logic at secondary level stood me in good stead in my later career.
I would prefer to have composed this letter in Irish, but the reality is that most of my fellow readers would not understand or bother to translate it. The current education system has failed to revive the language, but we irrationally persist.
Meantime, incredibly in today’s climate, my IT colleagues still find it difficult to recruit capable IT professionals from our nation’s talent pool. – Is mise,
Sir, – A bookie lecturing us on education. I hope it is a safe bet that his plans will fall at the first hurdle or be last past the winning post. – Yours, etc,