Sir, – Like anybody else, Ivan Yates is entitled to his opinion. However, this opinion loses all credibility when built on the crumbling foundations of inaccurate, poorly researched and misleading pseudo-analysis (Education Today, February 14th). He makes reference to lecturers having a teaching commitment of only six hours per week. In institutes of technology, this is far from the reality. Institute lecturers teach 16 to 18 hours per week; the international norm is 10 to 12. Moreover, for each hour of teaching, a multiple of this is spent in preparation, evaluation and reflection. In addition to this core commitment, they have a lengthy list of other academic responsibilities including research, devising and updating syllabuses on an on-going basis, course development and planning and extensive continuous and final assessment.
At a time when we hear much lip service to the concept of the knowledge economy, lecturers in institutes also carry out extensive applied research. They create the new knowledge that is so vital to this country.
Meanwhile, Mr Yates is not comparing like with like in terms of second level teaching hours. The number of core teaching hours in Ireland (735) is higher than both the OECD average of 679 and the 714 hour figure for England. In addition to this, a survey carried out by Behaviour Attitudes two years ago showed that when all aspects of the job are included, Irish second-level teachers work an average of 46 hours per week, which is considerably above the norms elsewhere. Furthermore, neither the second- nor third-level figures outlined above include the new commitments under the current Public Service Agreement.
Any debate on education is a welcome one and the quality of our public education system should be a matter for robust public discourse. However, it should always be grounded in fairness and accuracy. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – Ivan Yates, in his cursory and perfunctory analysis of the Irish education system, fails to mention the one variable which has the greatest influence on the academic attainment of our students: income and family background. He refers to the poor performance of Irish 15-year-olds in the Programme for International Assessment (PISA) administered in 2009, and compares their results with their Finnish peers who top the league tables in literacy, mathematics and science. He fails to mention however, that international educational scores are closely related to income inequality.
More unequal countries have worse educational attainment and the gulf between the rich and the poor in Ireland has widened in the past decade. Finland is a much more equal state than our own where, coincidentally, 90 per cent of the workforce from both the public and private sectors are trade union members.
He goes on to recommend a strategy of accountability in education which would reward teachers for their performance. This is a very simplistic and unsound policy and in tandem with his desire for comparative league tables, refuses to acknowledge the part social background, poverty and parental influence play on educational performance and attainment. We can learn lessons from other countries where this approach, enforced by market-driven reformers, has floundered and failed. The Death and Life of the Great American School System by Diane Ravitch, former assistant secretary in the US department of education, reports the manner in which a country can go off track in its efforts to improve education. Once an advocate for test-based accountability and market-based educational “reform” she now warns of the harmful effects that these policies have on the education system.
We need to take concrete steps to reduce poverty and share the benefits of greater equality across the majority of the population on this isle. It is that simple. – Is mise,