Sir, — Tom Collins (“Compulsory history, an anathema”, Education, September 18th) writes that “it is ironic that historians should find themselves arguing for compulsion, given the experience of compulsory Irish”. It is not clear that Prof Collins has himself considered the experience of compulsory Irish quantitatively. The facts are that only geography and English had a higher number of students sitting higher level papers than sat the Irish paper in the Leaving Cert last June.
For a subject that is the target of all manner of negativity in this country for cultural reasons – often hidden behind the “I’d have really loved Irish if it wasn’t compulsory” argument – it is remarkable that almost 40 per cent of students sitting the exam chose higher level, when they were not compelled to do so.
Incidentally, while Irish is always the popular target when talking about compulsion, let us not forget either that 50,000 students sat maths in the Leaving Cert, while only 43,000 sat “compulsory” Irish. Compulsion ain’t what it used to be, it seems.
The relevance of history – even from a general knowledge perspective – as a central part of any educational system which purports to produce informed rounded citizens is self-evident.
It would be a shame if the teaching of history were to fall victim to some specious political crusade to be seen to promote “choice”. In the average post-primary school, students find their choices extremely limited anyway, not least because of the constant cuts.
Had my daughter started post-primary school five years ago she could have studied two European languages but now because of cuts she can do only one in that school. In that context, talk of choice is risible.
This development is far more about creating the illusion of choice, as part of the Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn’s “reforming” agenda, than creating actual choice, which would require more teachers teaching more subjects. – Yours, etc,
MARTIN RYAN,
Springlawn Close
Blanchardstown,
Dublin 15.