Sir, – It is with great interest I followed the contributions of Prof Jim Gleeson and Dr Greg Foley on the Leaving Cert (September (August 29th, September 5th and 7th). We in the ASTI have been painted as troglodytes and members of the flat earthers for making the same arguments.
The proposed new Junior Cycle relies heavily on outcomes-based education. We have always suggested that the new Junior Cycle was heavily bureaucratic with no accompanying benefits. Dr Foley suggests as much – “while the outcomes approach imposes a very substantial administrative burden on lecturers, possibly stifling innovation in the process, there is no evidence to my knowledge that the learning outcomes does in fact lead to better outcomes”.
This is a point we in the ASTI have continued to make over the last number of years only for a succession of Ministers to ignore our argument.
Prof Gleeson appears to go even further. “I too am doubtful about the value of the learning outcomes approach”, he writes, and then adds, “the approach has been discredited in Australia, South Africa and other countries”. This echoes statements myself and others in the ASTI have made.
We want reform that works, reform that seeks to protect all that is good in the current system. It must be remembered that the catalyst for the suggested reforms was the saving of €27 million. The system proposed will lead to common level papers and a deliberate dumbing down of the Junior Cycle which will lead to a major disconnect between the Junior Cycle and the Leaving Cert, particularly at higher level. – Yours, etc,
ED BYRNE,
President, ASTI,
Thomas MacDonagh House,
Winetavern Street, Dublin 8.