There’s growing frustration amongst school principals as they’re unable to fill teacher vacancies. In the recurrent educators’ assemblies, the crisis of appointing and retaining teachers took prime focus again. Housing shortage, excessive workload, more favourable working conditions overseas, among other reasons, were identified as the main culprits.
However, another matter that’s equally to blame but hasn’t been equally exposed is the apprehension surrounding a potential unsuccessful overhaul of the Leaving Cert. That’s forcing some educators into early retirement or making them abandon their profession entirely.
A mismanaged reform of the Leaving Cert, though necessary, could escalate rather than mitigate the strain experienced by both students and teachers trialling the revamped Senior Cycle. This could also compromise the global respect held towards the exam due to its perceived fairness and stringent standards.
A detailed 200-page evaluation of the proposed fresh Leaving Cert specifications (syllabi) for biology, chemistry, and physics, has been carried out by the Irish Science Teachers’ Association (ISTA). Additionally, a response has been drafted by the Irish University Association (IUA) representatives in the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) subject development groups. The findings of both underscore the significant revisions needed before any of the three syllabi can be deemed ready.
There is a shared recognition, even by Minister Norma Foley, regarding the serious challenges faced during the launch of the new Junior Cycle exam. Regrettably, the same errors are being reproduced.
Opting for an exclusively learning-outcomes-based approach is amongst the primary issues. While this may seem like an obscure sụbject in education, it carries serious practical consequences. While learning outcomes outline the expertise, competencies and abilities students should attain and demonstrate after a specific period of learning, they’re grossly insufficient on their own. Compare that to other systems that have a final exam like the European Baccalaureate (EB) managed by Schola Europaea (European School). There, the curriculum is positioned across four columns, namely: theme (the subject), subject matter, learning goals and restrictions, and recommended activities.
Since 2019, the agricultural science has adopted a learning outcomes exclusive specification, causing foreseeable dissatisfaction and worry amongst both students and teachers.
There are clear disparities between the Irish specification and the EB syllabus, which are glaring in terms of depth and range. The constructs used in the new Leaving Cert guidelines, namely “students learn about” and “students should be able to”, contrast remarkably from the EB syllabus. The challenges with agricultural science which has been based on a learning-outcomes-only standard since 2019, are evident with the rising anxiety and frustration among students and teachers. An instance in point is the unexpected questions that came up in the first exam of the recently introduced Leaving Cert agricultural science in 2021, that hadn’t been defined in the specification.
ISTA’s analysis substantiates the intensifying concerns. In physics, 69 out of 101 learning outcomes are ambiguous. Some appear irrelevant in the context they’ve been applied to, while others are so generic it becomes challenging to decipher what’s expected of students. Some fail to outline any laboratory work, while others are so similar that they’re nearly indistinguishable.
In the field of chemistry, one-third of the learning outcomes have been found wanting, and in biology, more than half of them are inadequately defined. This lack of precision and clarity is a major irritant to science educators who value precision.
ChatGPT’s capabilities were recently tested by two teachers who used it to complete a booklet for the self-ruling examination in agricultural science. The results were promising, with qualified markers awarding it a 70% score.
Every subject now has an included ‘unifying strand’ purportedly dealing with the essence of science. However, it’s often deemed superfluous and repetitive, without any set list of experiments, as one might expect.
The implementation of an additional evaluation component is potentially problematic. Each student is tasked with executing an independent research investigation, which counts for 40% of the total grade. The IUA projects around 74,000 unique projects when agricultural science is factored in, an astonishing number. This monumental task seems untenable when 82% of the teachers involved in a survey acknowledged a lack of necessary lab facilities and staff.
It remains puzzling for both university lecturers and science teachers as to why an independent investigation, which presupposes a twenty-hour commitment, should account for 40% of the overall marks in a course with a total allocation of 180 hours. This investigation is intended to be documented in a standardised booklet, providing an edge to individuals with superior English and communication abilities, or simply put, those who are acquainted with such individuals. One cannot overlook the role played by ChatGPT.
During a recent ISTA conference, a demonstration was put forth by two teachers showcasing the potential of ChatGPT for completing a standardised booklet relating to an independent agricultural science investigation. The AI-generated output, assessed by knowledgeable evaluators oblivious of its AI origin, garnered a rating of 70%. The same format of booklet is projected to be employed across all new specification.
This method of allotting marks for the investigation will inadvertently reinforce societal inequality, given that more affluent students will have more resources at their disposal to aid in completion, resources out of reach for those less privileged.
It’s not solely applicable to subjects in the scientific domain. The standard for Gaeilge has encountered similar reproaches, and across the board there is a pervasive sense of apprehension towards an approach solely focused on learning outcomes.
There is still an opportunity to consider the input from teachers and to heed the cautioning of specialists in the field. Failure to do so could result in lasting harm to the prestige of the Leaving Cert.