Sir, – In keeping with the season, your Editorial (June 6th) raises the emphasis on rote learning within the Leaving Certificate system.
The core problems are three-fold. First, progression to third level is now seen as the norm for a huge proportion of the school-leaving population. Second, there is a vast array of third-level options available to students, in a wide range of institutions. Third, it has been decided, quite reasonably, to use performance in the Leaving Certificate as the means of entry to the majority of third-level programmes.
The consequence of this sequence of events is that the Leaving Certificate has become a high-stakes examination. It must, therefore, have the complete trust of everyone involved. This inevitably leads to a very well-defined syllabus that can be examined in an absolutely consistent and transparent manner. There can be no place for subjective assessment that might be unfair, or even just perceived as unfair. This inevitably leads to “learning to the exam”, which is not just an Irish phenomenon.
Developing and assessing skills such as creativity and critical thinking in a completely consistent and objective way is hellishly difficult, especially with 50,000 students and hundreds of examiners.
The problem is now in the lap of the third-level institutions. Employers continually complain about the inadequacies of our graduates, who presumably are supposed to be the foot soldiers of the “knowledge economy”, whatever that may be. So while the Leaving Certificate is not providing us in the sector with well-prepared students, we are clearly failing to fix whatever deficiencies they might have. Indeed, it would be my view that rather than fixing the problem, we are merely perpetuating the problems of the second-level system by increasingly “coaching” our students through their studies. In a way, we have no alternative unless we are willing to accept massive attrition rates – and the expected political fallout.
The ultimate driver of all of this is the fact that the modern school-leaver has essentially no option other than to go on to study at third level. This has “infected” both the second- and third-level systems.
Second level is now seen solely as a preparation for the entry examination for third level. Many third-level students are, in turn, uncommitted or simply out of their depth academically. Ultimately, we get a third-level sector that increasingly has to adopt second-level methods to drag academically weak students through the system. Employers are seeing these weaknesses in our graduates and moving on to fourth level. It is difficult to see where all of this is going to end. – Yours, etc,