The Leaving Cert - Should it stay?

Reports in our national newspapers yesterday informed us that pupils sitting the Leaving Certificate are stressed! Shock horror! Who knew? 

Well apparently it took a new ESRI study (working on behalf of the NCCA) to find out that more than half of female Leaving Certificate pupils are stressed out in sixth year compared with about a third of their male peers. This is not news! News, by definition, needs to be new. In fact, I am surprised the figures are so low. It is no secret that pupils undergoing terminal examinations undergo stress - they should be worried - these are important examinations that will very likely have an effect on their future career path. But the same is true of pupils sitting A-Levels, SAT's and even university exams (which I found personally far more stressful than the Leaving Cert). Stress is a universal effect of such examinations and, for many, it can serve to greatly improve study habits and exam performance. Teenagers get stressed for many more reasons other than their Leaving Cert too, and the ESRI study didn't clarify if the stress suffered by these teenagers was solely caused by the Leaving Cert.

But there is a more pressing question around this issue - should the Leaving Cert remain in its current format? The answer is plainly no. Over the last decade or more the Leaving Cert has evolved into a university entry system rather than a measure of the educational process in secondary schools. For this purpose the Leaving Cert succeeds - the CAO system is very fair, unbiased and non-judgemental - far more so than the UCAS system in the UK. The universities set the standards, the pupils apply anonymously and those that meet the standards (generally) get a place. Our university entry system is good and only requires tinkering - like increased use of aptitude tests and interviews. The "points system" is not the problem here. We need to change how the points are calculated not the entry system itself. 

The Leaving Cert examinations should not be the only means of assessing how successful a pupil has been in their senior cycle. For one pupil to attain 300 points can often be a greater achievement than another achieving 500. The pupil obtaining 300 points may have a greater passion for a particular subject or a greater desire to achieve. They might have better social or communication skills or may have been ill during the final examinations. Our schools can not be measured solely using examination results and our curricula can not be assessed purely by examination. A lecturer of mine used to refer to the Leaving Cert as "the assessment tail wagging the curriculum dog" (obviously quoting Hargreaves) - truly led by what will be assessed in the exams rather than the more ambitious aims and objectives of the syllabi.

But what should replace it? Well, let's get this clear first, examinations will always exist and any alternative system will have to incorporate written assessment. What I believe is required is a method of continuous assessment  - a series of examinations, projects, practical work and essays spread over the two (or possibly expanded to three) year senior cycle. Pupils will still experience stress when sitting their exams or having to meet a project deadline but ultimately the "high" levels of psychological strain reported in the ESRI report probably wouldn't exist. This system would require teachers to do a bit more work but, should the unions not interfere too much, the advantages of this work would greatly outweigh the disadvantages. This could mean the university admissions procedures could start earlier allowing the individuals find out more about their preferred courses and allowing the universities find out more about their prospective pupils. Ultimately, I can't see schools, teachers or even unions not adopting such a system in the future, but I do envisage major barricades, namely the Department of Education & Skills, the National Council for Curriculum & Assessment (NCCA) and the State Examinations Commission (SEC). 

To deliver a new system of assessment for each Leaving Certificate Subject, a new syllabus would need to be drafted, with updated aims and objectives and assessment procedures (It might be worth noting that the Department of Education and Skills still have syllabi for Economics and Agricultural Science that were formulated in the 1960's - both these subjects have changed dramatically in this period). New syllabi mean new training courses for teachers. New facilities or equipment may need to be purchased. A set of guidelines for teacher assessment would need to be formulated and remuneration would need to be discussed (it shouldn't need to be but the unions will ensure it does). Incidentally, I don't believe they would trust teachers to assess their own pupils either. In summary, continuous assessment procedures mean more examinations (over the two or three years), more examiners, more paperwork, more preparation, more responsibility for and trust in teachers and ultimately - more cost. For these reasons, I believe the Department of Education and Skills, the NCCA (despite their views on the current system) and the SEC will ultimately reject the introduction of a continuous assessment procedure for the Leaving Certificate programme - and will probably blame teachers or unions. And that is a great shame. 

Such a system will allow teachers focus on the curriculum, on learning and on developing a passion for a subject rather than preparing pupils for examinations purely by rote learning. If we want to good university entry system, then leave the Leaving Cert as it is. If we want a real measurement of pupil performance over a two or three year cycle (and a good university entry system), we need to adopt a new, all inclusive system of pupil assessment. Yes, we all will need to work harder, but that is a small sacrifice if it proves to be successful.