Leaving Cert science changes are deeply flawed

Sir, – Breda O’Brien’s excellent article on the proposed “learning outcomes only” model of syllabus design in the new Senior Cycle sciences brilliantly highlights the issues facing science teachers and their students (“Leaving Cert reform plans may result in irreparable damage to exams’ reputation”, Opinion & Analysis, April 6th).

Teachers, and their students, deserve absolute clarity on what needs to be taught and learned, and to what depth, and the recently published draft specifications (syllabuses) for Senior Cycle biology, chemistry and physics are grossly inadequate in this regard. The sole use vague learning outcomes to outline the subject content will result in confusion, inconsistency and unfairness. It’s the equivalent of asking a builder to construct a house with just a rough sketch without any detailed plans or designs.

One doesn’t need to search too hard for recent evidence of problems caused by vague and poorly constructed syllabuses; the Junior Cycle science specification used a similar flawed design and fails to provide an adequate platform for further study in the sciences. Similarly, a new specification for agricultural science was introduced five years ago using the same model and this has caused mass frustration among teachers of that subject. Numbers in Leaving Certificate agricultural science are plummeting as a result, because students want and deserve clarity too, especially when the terminal examinations are so high stakes. It seems the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) also recognises the issues in that subject, pencilling in a new specification for agricultural science in 2027 yet persisting with the flawed design for the other sciences.

The allocation of 40 per cent for an additional assessment component in the Senior Cycle sciences is also proposed. The proposal means students in biology, chemistry and physics would carry out an extensive laboratory or field-based experiment and write a report on it. The reality is that students don’t have equal access to school laboratories and the equipment levels vary enormously from school to school. Insisting on this form of assessment will only exacerbate the division in our education system. Additionally, the emergence of generative AI also means students could complete their entire project using this technology and those with access to digital devices, and generative AI, will once again have an advantage. The announcement by the Minister to move to a 40 per cent additional assessment component in all subjects was announced before the emergence of this technology but the landscape has changed enormously and it’s time to roll back on this, in the interest of common sense.

‘Let us wake up’: Macron warns of far-right on German trip as he and Scholz wrangle over hard issues

---

Weddings, rent and houses: What are the tax implications of a range of gifts to children?

---

Exile by Aimée Walsh: Haunted territories, hidden trauma

---

Gerry Thornley: Danger of mental scarring for Leinster following latest gut-wrenching final defeat

---

Our teachers and students deserve the best possible subject specifications, based on international best practice within a high-stakes environment. Comparing what the NCCA has produced with established curriculums in the UK or within the International Baccalaureate is like comparing chalk and cheese. We must do better and the reputation of Ireland’s Senior Cycle is genuinely in jeopardy. – Yours, etc,

HUMPHREY JONES,

Chairperson,

Irish Science Teachers’ Association,

Dublin 16.