Home-educated pupils face discrimination as examiners may refuse to mark coursework, writes Breda O'Brien
THE LEAVING Cert is a stressful experience for even the most relaxed of students. For one, let's call her Isabella, this year has an extra, totally unnecessary source of stress. Isabella is in the unenviable position that while she is completing quite challenging work, she is under threat of gaining no marks. Like many peers, Isabella is taking subjects with a practical coursework element. A relatively new development, coursework is completed well in advance of the written examination and can be worth 20 per cent or more of the final mark.
Coursework is viewed as a largely positive innovation, despite the great amount of extra work it generates both for the teachers who have to monitor it and the students who complete it. However, it generates significant additional pressures even for students who know they will receive marks for it. Picture what Isabella is going through, unsure if her work will be in vain. The consequences are potentially very serious. It is unlikely that she will receive the necessary points for her university course of choice if she does not receive credit for her coursework.
Why is she under this threat? Isabella is home-educated, and for that reason, the State Examinations Commission (SEC) holds that it is under no obligation to accept or mark her work. The State Examinations Commission has quite strict guidelines in place for coursework submission, not least because of the possibility of plagiarism. The stipulations include constant monitoring by a teacher, and validation by a principal that the student has completed the work.
By definition, home-educated young people cannot meet these criteria. They are facing insurmountable obstacles, despite that there is a constitutional recognition of the right to educate children in the home. Let me declare an interest, as all of our children are being educated at home by their father.
There are probably as many reasons for choosing home education as there are home educators. Some do so because their child has a learning disability, or is gifted, and the system has failed to provide adequate help or stimulation. Others believe that what children learn best in school is how to be compliant consumers. Still others just want the joy of really sharing their children's learning.
Like Isabella, many home-educated children will eventually decide that they want to pursue third-level education. The only avenue currently open to them is to sit the Leaving Certificate or an equivalent. Some families known to me, when they discovered that coursework would not be rewarded, decided with great reluctance to go the grind school route instead. Their reasoning was that it was worth enduring nine months of hell in order to get to college.
Surely this is not what the State would wish, that people who have thought deeply about the nature of education and invested heavily in making it a positive experience will be forced into choosing a style of education that is the antithesis of all that they believe in? When approached, the SEC outlined the legal position in relation to home education. "The Minister for Education has received legal advice to the effect that the procedures for authenticating a candidate's work are not in breach of a person's constitutional rights. Children outside the recognised school system are not obliged to follow the curriculum or to sit the Certificate examinations given that the State's obligation is limited by the Constitution to ensuring that they receive a certain minimum education."
While all of this is absolutely true, it rather misses the point. Surely the State should aspire to every child receiving the highest possible level of education? Or even to helping and rewarding those who value education? The National Educational Welfare Board is charged with the care of those choosing to educate at home, although the area of examinations is completely the remit of the SEC. Eddie Ward, CEO of the board, commented that although the State is only obliged to ensure a certain minimum education, that in the board's experience home-educated children in the main receive an education as good as found in any school, and in some cases better than in a school.
It could all be solved so simply, not least because there are so few home-educated Leaving Certificate students. A random selection of candidates could be required to undergo an oral examination to ascertain if the work is their own, or alternative methods of monitoring could be put in place.
The SEC has a committee looking at the issue, but it will be little use to Isabella, as there is no indication as to when it will report, and her coursework had to be completed yesterday. Aidan Farrell of the SEC says that all candidates for this year will have been informed of the criteria for validation, and will have made their choices accordingly. The implication seems to be that if someone chose to do a subject where they had been warned that they would not receive marks, it is their own responsibility.
This is not Isabella's experience. She was directed to the requirements in October, when she had already chosen her subjects. Her mother, Carol, believed that it was possible to interpret them in a way that would allow a home-educated person to comply. At no stage in her numerous conversations with the SEC was she told that her daughter could not submit coursework. It was implied by the SEC that if she found a school willing to ratify the work, all would be well. Carol believed it would be sufficient to find a qualified teacher to monitor, and succeeded in doing so. However, with the arrival of the official form around mid-term in the second term that demanded "constant supervision" the teacher turned pale, consulted his principal, and said: "No principal will sign this."
Isabella would also like to point out that she simply could not believe that she would be denied marks just because her parents chose to exercise their constitutional rights. She chose subjects in which she was interested, and passionate about, a novel idea perhaps to those more used to candidates choosing subjects in order to maximise points. For these idealistic reasons, her choice has turned into a completely unnecessary nightmare.