After a recent article I wrote questioning why it is so hard to achieve high marks in junior cycle (JC) exams, a reader contacted me to point out a particular problem for students hoping to study in Northern Ireland or the UK. UCAS (the British third-level application system) makes offers in advance of Leaving Cert results based on, among other things, JC results. This reader’s child wanted to study economics and accounting at Queen’s University Belfast. While the course demands only six H3s and one H2 at Leaving Cert level, last year four JC A (or distinction) grades plus two B (higher merit) grades were also required.
This is a direct transposition from the GCSE requirement of four A/7 grades plus two B/6 grades. But unlike A/7 in GCSEs, JC distinctions are virtually impossible to achieve. At 16, despite achieving higher merits, this student is already feeling a dream is unattainable. Although entry to UK third level and elsewhere affects only a minority, the stranglehold that CAO points have on our entire educational system affects the majority.
When the primary end of any assessment is to ensure entry to third level, any educational reform is doomed. Everything will still be geared towards gaming the system to maximise points.
Basing CAO points on the Leaving Cert may be simple and transparent, but it relieves third-level institutions of responsibility. The 2011 Hyland discussion paper for the Higher Education Authority suggested many alternative entry systems, including the adoption of generic first-year courses, such as general arts or general health sciences. Realistic entry requirements could be set, lowering the insane level of competition for coveted courses. Universities would have to assume responsibility for how students are selected for specialisation before going into second year.
Students from Republic missing out on UK places because of junior cycle marking
Meet the two Irish women with voting rights at the Synod of Bishops in Rome
Is inexplicably hard marking at Junior Cycle meant to prove a point to teachers?
Stop framing breastfeeding versus bottle-feeding as a question of mothers at war
Fears are rife about the Leaving Cert reform already under way. One deputy principal in a Deis school to whom I spoke is concerned for his students if the proposed 40 per cent of marks for additional assessment components such as projects and coursework goes ahead.
The middle classes already have the advantage of well-educated and well-connected parents. Prompt engineering is a relatively new discipline where inputs are tailored to maximise the value of an output from artificial intelligence (AI) tools. How will his disadvantaged students compete with those who can afford access to expert prompt engineers eliciting work from generative AI that may be impossible to detect? He is also concerned that teachers’ and students’ voices are just not being heard. He pointed to Irish Maths Teachers Association surveys, which found that just under 88 per cent of maths teachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with getting rid of the JC foundation level maths examination.
Teachers of Gaeilge have even more reason to be annoyed. Astonishingly, there is no oral assessment of Irish at JC level
Another survey of JC students found that nearly 40 per cent said classroom-based assessments in maths caused them anxiety, while another 30 per cent or so reported not enjoying them. All this and more was reported to the State Examinations Commission, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and the Minister, to no effect.
Teachers of Gaeilge have even more reason to be annoyed. Astonishingly, there is no oral assessment of Irish at JC level. More than 97 per cent of teachers surveyed believed this should be rectified immediately. Nothing has happened. Instead, a three-year review was instituted, ignoring the need for urgent action. Other significant problems with Gaeilge have been highlighted by more than 90 per cent of teachers, including too much literature and not enough language skills, exam papers that are mismatched to course content, and much more.
There are other oddities. For example, in JC history, the marks allocated to each question do not appear on the exam paper. How are students supposed to manage their time? Of much more concern is the decision to treat history thematically rather than chronologically, leaving glaring gaps both in students’ grasp of facts and how they interconnect.
All at a time when students have far less general knowledge, their impressions of current affairs are algorithm-driven and discussions with parents about significant events have been replaced by screen-gazing. The history course also specifies the study of only one fascist leader. One teacher told me that when she mentioned Mussolini she was greeted with a puzzled chorus of ‘Muscle-who?’ Despite serious difficulties with the new JC, teachers were also anxious to emphasise the positive, such as more activity-based learning and greater ease of differentiation according to students’ needs.
Similarly, everyone wants senior cycle reform to succeed. But additional assessment components will present huge logistical challenges. For example, it is proposed that English and one other will happen at the end of fifth year. But what will happen in sixth year when students will have five deadlines, each worth 40 per cent, on top of a terminal exam? Other subjects will be given short shrift as each deadline approaches.
As one teacher told me, anyone who thinks that will reduce stress needs their head examined. Some teachers have taken to calling it Foley’s Folly. There is still time to listen to teachers, the experts on the ground, but no teacher I spoke to believed that sense would prevail.