Ordinary-level English exam is much too highbrow for weaker students, writes JOE COY

THE HIGHER-LEVEL English exam in the Leaving is rightly credited for its content. But the ordinary- level exam is appalling. And there are important equality issues here – given that most ordinary-level students come from the poorer sections of our society, where literacy is less of a tradition.

The ordinary-level paper has to cater for all those students unable to take the higher-level paper. This includes a proportion whose ability to read, think, analyse or write can be very limited.

Instead of acknowledging this fact and catering for it, the ordinary level exam is merely a diluted version of the higher one. It even follows the format of the higher paper in every respect, including the time allocated – six hours and 10 minutes.

So while the more able higher- level students are asked to write an essay on a topic such as “an article for a pop-magazine on being a good neighbour”, their less able peers are expected to write for nearly 90 minutes on a topic like “an article for a school magazine for or against the use of animals in sport”.

While the literate students are given 45 minutes to “write a short radio talk where you explain the importance of books in your life”, their ordinary-level peers are expected to perform a similar, if not more challenging, task when asked to “write a piece to appear on a website promoting an exciting adventure holiday anywhere in the world.”

This is like asking sprinters to compete in a marathon. Weaker students are incapable of writing for such long periods of time on a single topic.

In the literature syllabus the common range of texts on offer, to both levels, is esoteric and challenging. This year's selection includes The Reluctant Fundamentalistby Moshin Hamid, How I Live Nowby Meg Rosoff and Out Stealing Horsesby Per Petterson. No provision is made for the many students who are not readers.

Even the few texts that are considered "suitable" for ordinary-level students ( Wuthering Heights, The Plough and the Starsand Hamlet)are hopelessly dated – in terms of language and themes – for these students.

The poetry section is an even worse offender. Ordinary-level students are expected to write for 50 minutes on one poem. One example is Red Wheelbarrow,consisting of 16 words. Yes, the weakest student in Ireland could be asked to write for 50 minutes on a 16-word text. This, more than anything else, highlights the disconnect between the examiner and the student.

The present ordinary-level English exam is counter- productive. It prevents teachers from doing what they want to do.

I would much prefer if my present Leaving Cert class could study more functional English – how to express themselves clearly and concisely in both oral and written form, how to write short pieces in a variety of modes and how to stand up and express their opinions on a range of topics.

I’d like them to understand why language skills are vital to their future lives, why literature can be educational, interesting and relevant and that poetry is truly valuable.

Every English teacher I know has a passion for their job. They want their students to be functionally literate and to enjoy their subject. Every August all the emphasis is on higher-level results as those who have most in society seek to consolidate their entrenched positions.

Meanwhile – away from public view – those sitting ordinary-level are deprived of worthwhile learning because of some daft notion that the syllabus and course cannot diverge from the benchmark of Irish literacy, higher-level English.

We can do better. Surely we can devise a more realistic and worthwhile exam for the large number of students with limited resources and abilities.

Joe Coy is an English teacher at Glenamaddy Community School Galway.