Breda O’Brien: Norma Foley’s half-baked reform of the Leaving Cert ought to be abandoned

It looks like Norma Foley’s “early win” senior cycle reform may now be untenable. Last March, the Minister for Education announced ambitious Leaving Cert reforms. The proposal that captured the most attention is that from this September, students will sit paper-one exams in English and Irish at the end of fifth year, instead of two papers in sixth year.

This was allegedly to reduce student stress. Initially, the Irish Secondary Student’s Union (ISSU) welcomed the proposal but recently denounced the proposed reforms as “neither an adequate nor comprehensive enough solution”.

ISSU said there was no provision for those who drop from Higher to Ordinary in sixth year, or any clarity about whether the fifth year exams could be retaken if students were unhappy with the results. The difference in cognitive and emotional development between boys and girls could also disadvantage boys as they are less likely to do well in earlier exams. ISSU no longer supports the change.

It is not alone. The second-level teaching unions, ASTI and TUI, have serious and substantial objections, including that all other subjects will suffer in fifth year as students concentrate on English and Irish. Subject associations such as the Irish National Organisation of Teachers of English (iNote) and An Gréasán (the Irish teachers’ association) are vociferously opposed.

Why does no one give up their seat on public transport any more?

---

Did no alarm bell tinkle from RTÉ's editorial structures about its programme on abortion services?

---

Critics are right to worry that hate speech laws are open to abuse

---

Leaving Cert reform plans may result in irreparable damage to exams’ reputation

---

iNote said that the “educational value of the exam has been dismissed and replaced with the need to ease the pressure for those looking for CAO points”. An Gréasán, along with Gael Linn, recently mounted a weeklong campaign on Twitter opposing the move. Éanna Ó Caollaí reported that 10 Irish-language and educational organisations wrote to the Minister querying the scientific and educational basis for the move and decrying the lack of consultation with “practitioners in the classroom”.

Conradh na Gaeilge found in a Freedom of Information request that the then chief inspector, since retired, Harold Hislop, had mooted in June 2021 that holding some exams earlier could constitute “early wins” in senior cycle reform.

[ A crash course in Leaving Cert reform ]

[ Battle lines drawn over Leaving Cert reform ]

Andrea Feeney, CEO of the State Examinations Commission (SEC) pointed out the many practical and pedagogical difficulties this proposal would entail. She called for re-crafting of both English papers, reducing the time for both to two hours and 20 minutes from the current two hours and 50 minutes and three hours and 20 minutes, and to have language and literature assessed on each paper.

Áine Hyland, emeritus professor of education at UCC, has said she knows of no example internationally where radical changes to a nationally examined programme such as the Leaving Cert were not accompanied by syllabus changes

Most importantly, Feeney called for a “review of the specification”, the current educational jargon for subject guidelines. The irony is not lost on teachers that, for example, in architecture, a specification is a detailed description of all the work and materials needed to bring a project from drawings to completion.

Rough outline

The recently reformed junior cycle specifications were more like a rough outline on the back of a napkin. The Minister said at a meeting of the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals that she would be “very foolish” not to learn from the mistakes made in the roll-out of the junior cycle. Yet changing the timing of exams without any other change is the definition of foolishness.

Áine Hyland, emeritus professor of education at UCC, has said she knows of no example internationally where radical changes to a nationally examined programme such as the Leaving Cert were not accompanied by syllabus changes.

She also emphasises the difference between a specification and a syllabus. In the latter, you do not just have an overarching curriculum framework and learning outcomes. There are clear guidelines on the content and on the depth of treatment required. Elements of the subject build organically on each other. It is accompanied by detailed notes for teachers and links to educational resources. Finally, the syllabus is aligned in a transparent fashion with how the subject will be assessed. All of this and more was provided by the French government in the new Baccalaureate (examined from 2021).

The junior cycle specifications lack much of this. To the anger and dismay of students and teachers, when the junior cycle was finally examined in full last year, the exam questions often did not align with the specifications.

At the moment, the Leaving Cert, although insanely and unnecessarily stressful for our poor young people, has high public trust

In the proposed new senior cycle, 60 per cent of the marks will be based on written exams and 40 per cent on additional assessment components such as project work, orals or practicals. As outlined in last week’s column, developments in AI and chatbots raise fresh questions about the integrity of coursework and projects.

Other jurisdictions are moving away from alternative assessments. For example, the UK OCR examining board now allocates only 20 per cent of the marks in A-level English to non-exam components. In three science subjects, the total marks are allocated to the final exam and the practical component is reported separately.

At the moment, the Leaving Cert, although insanely and unnecessarily stressful for our poor young people, has high public trust. A properly designed modular Leaving Cert would maintain that respect, especially since virtually all higher education courses are now modularised.

Creative forms of alternative assessment (which cannot be subcontracted to ChatGPT) are also welcome. But hasty, half-baked proposals to split the exams, far from being early wins, risk not only increasing student stress but destroying public confidence.