Madam, - Gemma Hussey (June 9th) claims that John Waters is a "very predictable source" for an "anti-feminist diatribe" in his analysis of the Leaving Certificate English syllabus (Exam Times, June 8th). Could I say that she herself is a very predictable source for denial of his findings? Of course, she had a role in opening up the syllabus to social construction, so she would say that, wouldn't she?
I think John Waters is perfectly right to say that in the interest of political correctness and gender balance the English course has been devalued. I do not see much hope of improvement while these interests hold sway and those who disagree are vilified. - Yours, etc,
Mrs MARY STEWART, Donegal Town.
Madam, - It was with great interest that I read John Waters's preview of the Leaving Cert English examination: I am a teacher of English. It is sad that his analysis of the course is both shallow and inaccurate.
The new Leaving Cert course is divided into two parts: language, offering the student the opportunity to understand and practise a wide variety of language genres; and literature, offering a wide variety of poetry, drama, novels, travel writing, biography, short stories and film. There is a great deal of choice. The teacher can choose material best suited to his or her particular class group; more challenging texts can be chosen for one class, more accessible texts for another.
If Mr Waters was teaching the course he would be in a position to choose texts which tended to support his own particular prejudices. My students, questioned this morning, did not feel that their studies had been "steered by feminism's dead hand".
My own view is that the course offers a rigorous training in critical thought and expression, an ability to understand and critique the written and spoken word, and above all, an opportunity to enjoy a small selection of literature at its best. It is a remarkably good course. - Yours, etc,
KENNEDY P O'BRIEN SJ, Gonzaga College, Dublin 6.