INOTE Response to New LC English Draft Specification

I have previously written notes on the new Leaving Certificate specification for English, and you should also read Conor Murphy’s.

Now the Irish National Organisation for Teachers of English has posted a response, and as you would expect it is measured, well-written, deeply-informed and coherent. None of those qualities, unfortunately, mean it will be listened to, but we can only do our best. If you haven’t submitted your own response to the NCCA, please make sure you do by Friday 2nd May at 5.00pm here.

INOTE address the unfortunate acceleration by the former Minister, confirmed recently by the new one, which risks damaging the positive elements of the proposed reform (AI is the most prominent problem here, though not the only one). As I have often said, the determinant factor in curricular reform in Ireland is sunk cost fallacy.

We know that reform is an important and necessary process, and we actively embrace meaningful reform, yet we are very concerned with the sheer speed and breadth of the proposed curriculum changes to Leaving Certificate study as a whole, not just English.

However, it is laudable

that the overall vision of the new specification chimes very much with how we see English study: as an exciting exploration of multiple voices, of deep engagement in critical thinking and emotional responses and also providing myriad opportunities to create and shape individual student voice. The emphasis on enjoyment and empathy is foregrounded and this is to be strongly commended. While the overall course rationale promises an experience with a wide range of different voices, this depends very much on retaining the wide range of textual options the current prescribed texts list provides.

The rest of the document addresses matters such as the fact that GenAI is developing so rapidly that current ‘guardrails’ are likely to be bypassed, the question of the new oral proposal for the comparative, and the canard constantly repeated by Ministers that this new system will reduce stress. This comment hits the target:

To protect the wellbeing of students is a laudable goal for the new reforms but to assume that spreading high stress assessments in multiple subjects over the two year-cycle is misguided. This will only construct an experience where students experience a long accumulation of continuous stresspoints. Our experience is that this will lead to student exhaustion, and potential burnout, which is at odds with the aim of fostering student enjoyment of English.

There’s no point in me writing more: you just need to read the response yourself.