A recent piece I authored regarding the difficulty in attaining high scores in junior cycle (JC) examinations prompted a reader to highlight a distinct issue for pupils aspiring to continue their education in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. The application procedure for British tertiary education, UCAS, offers in anticipation of Leaving Cert outcomes, partly relying on JC grades. The reader’s offspring had aspirations to pursue economics and accounting at Queen’s University Belfast. Despite the course necessitating only six H3s and a single H2 at Leaving Cert stage, last year, it also required four distinction grades (JC A) and two higher merits (JC B).
This follows directly the GCSE qualifications, calling for four A/7 grades and two B/6 grades. However, unlike achieving A/7 grades in GCSEs, getting distinctions in JCs is nearly unattainable. At age 16, the student is already disheartened, believing in the unachievable dream despite his higher merits. While pursuing further studies in the UK and elsewhere impacts only a small proportion, the vice-like grip that CAO points have on our entire educational structure impacts the majority.
With the main objective of any assessment being the facilitation of entry into third level education, any proposed educational reform is destined to fail. The focus will inevitably be on manipulating the system to maximize points.
Linking CAO points to the Leaving Cert may be straightforward and open, but it absolves higher education institutes from accountability. The 2011 Hyland discussion paper for the Higher Education Authority proposed multiple alternative entry systems, along with the introduction of broad-based first-year courses like general arts or general health sciences. This could pave the way for setting more realistic qualification criteria, reducing the fierce competition for sought-after courses. Universities will need to take charge of determining how students are streamlined for specialisation ahead of their second academic year.
There are widespread concerns about the ongoing changes to the Leaving Cert. A deputy head at a Deis school I interacted with is worried about his pupils if the proposed marking scheme, attributing 40 per cent for extra evaluation components like projects and coursework, comes into effect.
The socially privileged already benefit from parents who are educated and well-linked. Instantaneous engineering, a rather recent field of study, optimises inputs to enhance the yield from AI tools. This raises questions about how underprivileged pupils will compete with those who can afford specialised prompt engineers extracting work from AI algorithms in an undetectable manner. Additionally, it’s feared that the voices of teachers and students are being overlooked. This is backed up by surveys from the Association of Mathematics Teachers in Ireland revealing that nearly 88 percent of maths teachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with eliminating the foundation level maths exam for JC.
Teachers of Irish, or Gaeilge, have a multitude of reasons to express their displeasure. It’s surprising that no verbal evaluation of Irish is conducted at JC level. A separate survey of JC pupils showed that roughly 40 percent experienced anxiety due to classroom-based maths assessments, and an additional 30 percent did not find them enjoyable. This information was presented to the State Examinations Commission, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, and the Minister, with no resulting action.
The lack of oral testing in Gaeilge is a major discontent among Irish teachers, with over 97 percent believing it should be urgently addressed. However, no action has been taken and instead, a three-year review was initiated, disregarding the immediate need for intervention. More than 90 percent of teachers have also pointed out other substantial issues with Gaeilge, such as an emphasis on literature over language skills, mismatched exam papers and course content, among others.
One peculiar aspect is in JC history, where the marks for individual questions aren’t presented on the exam paper, making time management difficult for students. An even greater concern is the thematic approach to history teaching rather than a chronological one, resulting in conspicuous gaps in the students’ understanding of historical facts and their interconnection.
The present time is marked by a noticeable decrease in students’ general knowledge, with algorithms shaping their understanding of current affairs and traditional parent-student conversations being replaced by screen time. Additionally, the restriction of studying just a single fascist leader in the history curriculum leads to a lack of recognition from students, as a teacher relayed her experience of students being unfamiliar with Mussolini. Despite the challenges presented by the new Junior Certificate, teachers recognise its merits, including increased experiential learning and easier differentiation to suit individual student’s needs.
There’s a unified desire for the success of senior cycle reform. However, the introduction of extra assessment elements poses significant logistical difficulties. It’s suggested that the assessment for English and an additional subject would be conducted at the end of the fifth year, raising concerns about managing five 40% worth deadlines and a final examination in the sixth year. This could result in other subjects not receiving enough attention as deadlines approach.
One teacher expressed scepticism, stating that the notion of reducing stress with this new structure requires rethinking. Some educators have even labelled it ‘Foley’s Folly’. Despite this, there’s still an opportunity to consider teachers’ expert insights. Unfortunately, none of the teachers spoken to held much faith in the likelihood of this happening.