This Leaving will be like the sports day with a medal for everyone
Those students who are supposed to be helped most by this avoidable mess will be the first to disengage from it, argues
AESOP’S fable is of a mountain giving birth to a mouse. Thus it was with the great “education partners” committee which has given rise to the proposals for the new Leaving Cert. The students’ voice comes across strongest — and it must be the only time that students have decided on the method of examining themselves. A bit like the players picking the team. All the other groups have had to bite their tongues.
The unions know it is a mess, but can’t really say that as public opinion just wants an answer to this issue. If any union goes offside and does not co-operate, there will be hell to pay. As such, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. And there was obviously no hearing at all for principals, who now have to administer not just a dual system but all types of variations of that dual system.
We are all supposed to put on the green jersey for the sake of our students. That is fine, but it does not mean suspending all critical analysis.
What we have now is an accredited grades system. It was called ‘predicted’ grades last year, but that is a dirty word now. Last year was a complete shambles which gave rise to historically high grades, a last-minute intervention by the Department of Education to downgrade some schools while leaving others alone, a bloating of third-level places, High Court cases and, finally, written exams in November where large numbers got higher than their previous grades — so space has now to be found for them in colleges next year. And some thought the process a success.
Anyway, now we have the ultimate mess coming down the tracks. The argument was that because some students were not engaging with online classes this year or last year, due to the digital divide and many other reasons, it would be very unfair to have them sit a written test, as they would be way behind. Hence these accredited grades.
The proponents of this do not seem to realise this is a totally bogus argument. If students are not engaging, for whatever reason, then there is no data to give them an accredited grade. Go figure the logic to that argument.
People might find it hard to follow what is actually happening. A student can now opt for an accredited grade only, or get an accredited grade and sit the written exams, or some combination of both systems. If students decide on going the route of accredited grades only, then they won’t have to do orals or practical work. In some cases, like Irish, this is 50pc of the marks.
So the teacher in Irish, or all the other languages, will have some doing the oral work and others in the same class having a laugh. Good luck to the teachers in those classes. Construction studies can decide not to bother with a project, while others are working furiously to get projects finished. A recipe for chaos.
What will happen is that weaker students, by and large, will opt solely for accredited grades while more academic types will take both. Or some good students, who know they will get the highest grade from their teacher, will bank that and only do written exams in subjects where they want to take an each-way bet.
What will teachers do? Last year they were stung by grades, marks and ranking in class being published. One thing for sure this year is that teachers will take no chances that one of their students will get a higher mark on the written paper than they’ll give them in their accredited grades. Why would they? This is not like third level, where most students are relatively anonymous to lecturers.
Teachers live in their communities and are sometimes very friendly with parents of students. They could be involved in the same club or society. So the last thing they will want is parents to say, “You did not treat my son/ daughter very well. He/she got a higher grade in the written exam than you gave.” So teachers will err on the side of generosity. Who could blame them?
The upshot will be either historically high grades, or else this new algorithm that the State Examination
Commission (SEC) are using will make savage cuts to the grades. Good luck with that — and teachers will be able to say that if this is the way the SEC want to go, then it has nothing to do with them.
I hope they don’t use last year’s algorithm model. Presumably it is buried with the automatic voting machines in some offshore island. Perhaps it will be the same as last year, with more and more getting into third level — and huge drop-out rates after first year.
In this type of educational snobbery there are all sorts of courses but no jobs from them. Yet you can’t get anyone to fix your washing machine, do some simple electrical work or look at a rattling exhaust on a car. Unless you pay a small fortune.
There is also the issue of pressure being placed on teachers by students or their parents. Legislation is promised, but will be worthless in 99pc of cases. Pressure will be much more subtly applied.
A student could easily let a teacher know what they want to study in college and what they need in their subject.
The vast majority of students are unlikely to fail anything in these exams either. Teachers will think it’s not worth the hassle. So this year’s Leaving Cert will be like the school sports, with a medal or a lollipop for everyone. It is a divorce from the reality of life. The best get up after a knock and get on with it.
Those who are supposed to be helped most by this system will disengage earliest, no matter what the experts think. They will take their chance on accredited grades and will probably be out of school and working by May or early June, while the others take on the written exams.
The solution to it all was so simple. If the minister wanted accredited grades so badly, then fine — but make everyone do the orals, practicals and all the written exams, too. Students could then take the best results from either process. It would give the clarity and choice that the minister spoke about. Then we could all put on the jersey. Instead, we have an avoidable mess.
‘Those who are supposed to be helped by this will disengage earliest’