ASTI - Ireland's main second level teachers union

<- Back to: Press Releases

 

The debate on the reform of Ireland’s college entry system must acknowledge the need to retain a Leaving Certificate qualification which has high status, is regarded as valid and reliable by employers at home and abroad, and which opens up pathways including progression to training, further education and third-level education, ASTI Assistant General Secretary Moira Leydon told a conference today.

Speaking at today’s HEA-NCCA conference “Transition or Transaction: Moving from Second to Third-level Education in Ireland” Moira Leydon said: “We welcome this timely conference which encourages joined-up thinking in the debate on reform of the points system. Teachers are open to reform which improves teaching and learning in our schools. This includes curriculum reform and changes to assessment methods. However, teachers will oppose reform which is ineffective due to lack of planning and resources, exacerbates social inequalities, or undermines the pupil-teacher relationship.”

She told the conference that a report by Dr Aine Hyland (prepared for today’s conference) states that the Leaving Certificate curriculum is not predicated on rote-learning, and does require students to critically engage with content and to apply higher order learning skills. She also pointed out that over 92% of second-level students now complete the Leaving Certificate and that these students have a wide range of abilities and career interests. “Not all students require entry to third level at the point of Leaving Cert, but these students have a legitimate expectation that the Leaving Cert will serve them as well as it serves others,” said Ms Leydon. 

Ms Leydon added that there are no easy solutions when it comes to reform of the college entry system. However, Dr Hyland’s report does present the case for reform of the current system.

“In discussing reform of third level entry we must acknowledge the problems and the successes of our second and third level education systems. The cost of delivering a solution should not fall exclusively on the second-level system and should not serve to dismantle what is working well for schools and students. This is a particularly important point in the context of recent severe cutbacks in schools. Proposals which place additional burdens on schools will only serve to distort the goals of senior cycle education.”

 

Ends