New Year, Same Argument: Standards in Maths & Science

Last year I wrote a piece on this blog arguing the case for the supposedly poor standards in maths and science in this country and specifically in the leaving certificate. I feel it important to reiterate some of the points made in that post (and some new ones) as the issues seems to reoccur every year and I feel it is unfairly represented in the media - especially in print. 

The Leaving Certificate is a deliberately broad curriculum requiring candidates to study at least six subjects over a two year period. Most study seven while some study eight. This broad curriculum does not suit most individuals and is the exception rather than rule when compared to most other European countries - who generally adopt a more focused curriculum in the senior cycle - for example UK students study a minimum of three subjects at A Levels. This all means that the average leaving cert pupil will spend approximately 45 minutes with each subject per day - five or six lesson periods per week per subject including subjects like maths, physics or chemistry. This simply isn't enough time to reach the standards that we set for ourselves. We need to allocate more class contact time with pupils for all subjects if we are to meet our own high expectations. To do this we need to either increase the school day (Ireland already has one of the longest schools days in Europe) or reduce the number of subjects required at leaving certificate. For me, the latter is the most obvious for a number of reasons. At the moment leaving cert students are seen to make their subject choices based on which subjects are easiest to obtain good grades in - besides aptitude and interest. Reducing the number of subject taught at leaving cert would mean a more focused approach could be taken in the subjects, more class contact time given to each subject, more time for exploring the practical applications of subjects like maths and science in these classes and less pupils picking subjects that they neither have an aptitude for or an interest in. This would also allow the students with a strong aptitude in science and maths to focus on these subjects without having to study subjects that they have no interest or aptitude in.

In Ireland, mathematics is a compulsory subject at leaving certificate. To compare the performance of every Irish student in mathematics to students in other European countries is simply unfair. In the UK, only 30% of A Level students study mathematics this year. While on paper the standards they achieve is very high (around 44% achieve A*'s or A's annually) the A Level system has been undergoing dramatic grade inflation over the past decade. They also have more class contact time due to their more focused curriculum. It must also be remembered that an A grade in Ireland is awarded for scores over 85% while in the UK it's 70%. Granted, there is a high failure rate in maths in Ireland but if the subject was optional these students would choose subjects more suited to their aptitudes.

In Ireland, over 50% of leaving cert students choose a science in their senior cycle. When compared to the UK the figure is around 17%). This figure is mainly down to the numbers of students studying biology while the percentage of students studying chemistry and physics in Ireland is slightly lower than our nearest neighbours. This all comes down to the so called "points race". Students choose seven or eight subjects which they feel will allow them get the most points. Chemistry and physics are known as more difficult subjects so less students choose to study them. The high numbers in biology are down to students requiring at least six subjects and to "keeping their options open" in terms of university choice (it is also perceived as an easy option). Neither outcome is favourable. We have students capable (and possibly interested) in studying physics and chemistry but choosing not to because of the points system. We have students choosing biology who have neither the interest nor aptitude. We need radical reform of the points system to remove these negative outcomes and encourage more students to study the sciences for the right reasons. 

We also need to remove the leaving cert's dependence on the terminal exam. These exams are good are assessing rote learning or the ability to learn off definitions and formulas. They are limited at determining the candidates ability to problem solve or adopt scientific knowledge to practical problems. This is what science is about - it's a process not a collection of facts and figures. At the moments we are in a system which rewards rote learning and memorising facts. We want to teach students to ask questions not answer them. This will mean a change in how we assess our students and will require some form of continuous assessment. The ASTI don't like that word but teachers and their unions need to take as much responsibility for educational reform as politicians should. No longer can we see ourselves as pawns in the process - we are part of the system and the ones best positioned to offer advice and suggestions for our system's urgent reform.

Finally, I can plead to the Irish media adopt just one stance on this issue. Either complain about grade inflation in the leaving cert or poor standards. You can't have it both ways. To say in one article that the number of pupils achieving A's is rising and this needs to be addressed and in another criticise teachers and the DES for poor standards simply won't cut it. Make up your mind on what you want to report on.

So, to conclude, we need to:

• Remove the points system as it currently stands and radically reform how students are chosen for university entry.
• Reduce the number of subjects studied for the leaving certificate to four.
• Make maths optional allowing the syllabus to expand.
• Make our assessment procedures less exam focused.
• Teachers need to take responsibility for educational reform too and become more proactive in this regard.

2010 - The Year Irish Education Fell to Earth

With Ireland’s OECD ranking in maths and literacy slipping dramatically and our universities falling in global rankings, 2010 was a traumatic year. Here we revisit some of the headline moments from Seán Flynn, Irish Times Education Editor.

1. WE BEGAN TO FEEL LESS CONFIDENT ABOUT OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

The OECD/PISA study published last week was the most significant event of the year. On reading levels, Ireland has slipped from fifth place in 2000 to 17th place – the sharpest decline among 39 countries surveyed. Almost one-quarter of Irish 15-year-olds are below the level of literacy needed to participate effectively in society. In maths, Ireland has fallen from 16th to 26th place, the second steepest decline among participating countries. Ireland is now ranked as below average in maths. In science, we rank 18th – despite all the hype about the knowledge economy. Cumulatively, the results represent a body blow to a system which has long traded on its “world class” reputation.

In response, the INTO – to its great credit – acknowledged the “complacency’’ which had settled on the Irish education system. But the OECD report left no one in any doubt – the Irish education system needs a radical overhaul.

2. AT LAST! THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BEGAN TO ASK SOME FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

The Department of Education stopped acting as a cheerleader for the education system this year. Secretary general Brigid McManus and chief inspector Harold Hislop put a new focus on quality and accountability. Already, reviews of teacher training, numeracy and literacy have been ordered. There are encouraging signs that the Department’s notorious “light touch regulation’’ of standards in schools may be ending.

Shattering the Myth Of A World Class Education System

In today's Irish Times, Education Editor Seán Flynn takes at how Ireland fares in the most recent OECD report - and apparent we're not "ticking all the right boxes".

The latest OECD findings expose the Irish education system for what it is – a lot less successful than we like to tell ourselves

In the dark days – and there has been a good number of late – we could at least find comfort in the quality of our education system. For years, ministers for education and the teacher unions told us we could take pride in our “world class” education system. It was the magnet that helped to draw inward investment to our shores – and it was something that differentiated us from troubled education systems in Britain and elsewhere. When it came to education, the land of saints and scholars could mix it with the folks at the top table.

It’s not an exaggeration to say this portrayal of the Irish education system was almost entirely based on one authoritative study. In 2000, the OECD/Pisa* survey of 15-year-olds ranked Ireland fifth in literacy, well above the OECD average. This glowing report helped to stifle much-needed debate about the quality of the Irish education system. Naysayers could be rebuked and brought to heel by reference back to that OECD survey. Over the years, the mantra from the Department of Education and the teacher unions became familiar: “We can’t be doing much wrong if we are in the top five in literacy.”

The truth, of course, was more complicated. Ireland performed well in the 2000 literacy survey because it had an inherent advantage, a homogenous school-going population with few migrants. In simple terms, the task of imparting literacy in Irish classrooms was less challenging than that facing teachers in inner-city Paris or in central London.

No!!! to a Two Tier Teaching Profession

 

On reading our government's Nation Recovery Plan I have become extremely dismayed. Their savage cuts in education are going to hit the most vulnerable in society - a reduction in third level grants, student fee increases, reduction in teacher numbers in both primary and secondary, a 10% reduction in "new entrants" into the teaching profession, a reduction in support staff, a reduction in the number of resource teachers for traveller children, a cap on special needs assistants, a loss of language support teachers and an overall cut of 360 million Euro over 4 years.

But it is the creation of a two tier teaching profession that worries me most. There can be no situation where a "new entrant" into the teaching profession can be valued at 10% less than someone with one more year's experience. This is truly a disturbing development and one which must not be allowed to come to fruition. It's worth noting that the government have yet to state if new TD's will suffer this 10% cut but it is widely believed that they won't. There is another issue too - that of the definition of "new entrant". It is being claimed that a "new entrant" not only includes new public servants but also individuals who are returning to the public service after a break of more than 26 weeks. If this is true a situation could arise where an experienced teacher, who may have left the profession for a short period, would return to the lowest increment and suffer a 10% on top of that - effectively cutting their entitled wages enormously. 

There are also concerns for privately paid teachers, including myself. I am not a public servant but am paid the same pay scale as someone on my state wage with the same level of teaching experience and qualifications (I incidentally pay into the Teacher Superannuation Scheme too). So, should I decide to return to a public school or indeed be moved onto the incremental staff of my own school, will I suffer the same consequences too? - a return to point one on the scale and a 10% pay cut on top of that? All this needs to be clarified immediately and is a serious worry!

We cannot allow our staff rooms to be split into a two tiers, with one side paid 10% more than the other, and I certainly don't wish to be put in that position. The professional integrity of the teaching profession needs to be kept intact. For this reason I call on the Teaching Council, who's role is to "to promote teaching as a profession at primary and post-primary levels, to promote the professional development of teachers and to regulate standards in the profession", to stand up for teachers and not allow the government introduce these grossly unfair amendments to our terms of employment. To date few teachers are seeing the value of the Teaching Council and look to their unions to defend the integrity of profession. If the Teaching Council cannot do this or deems it outside their remit, then I see little value in its existence either.

Guest Post - Are Exams Getting Easier? A Leaving Certificate Rant!

This guest post is written by fellow Frog Blogger Jeremy Stone. Jeremy explores grade inflation in the Leaving Cert and asks what really is the true purpose of our education system. 

As a teacher, this has been the most successful year of my life - at least in terms of the exam success of my pupils (as was last year... and the year before that... and the year before that...). Indeed if we use overall exam performance as the arbiter of academic success then, each succeeding year, pupils all over the world must be working harder and harder, and must be getting increasingly more intelligent (perhaps it’s something in the water).

In the UK the A-Level pass rate rose in 2010 for the 18th year in a row, and overall GCSE results improved for the 23rd year running. In Ireland research by Martin O’Grady (of Tralee I.T.) compares Leaving Certificate grades in 1992 and 2006, and finds a very strong case for grade inflation. For each of the 24 comparable Higher Level subject exams there was an overall 55% increase in the percentage of A and B grades achieved in 2006 – compared with 1992. The level of A1s awarded overall increased by over 300% during the same period. The increases in achievement at Ordinary Level are even higher.

Budget 2010 - Cuts to Education Never Heal

As the government look to make at least €3 Billion in savings in their December budget, through tax increases and a significant reduction in public spending, they must resist the urge to make any cuts in education and, if possible, look to increase funding in this sector. While potential cuts look like an easy option, they go against publicised government policy and could damage our economic recovery and international reputation.

Smart Economy

The government's economic and job creation plans are based around the development of a knowledge based "smart" economy, centred around the formation of jobs in science, engineering, manufacturing, as well as research  and development. To attain the ambitious goals outlined in their policy document, significant investment must be made in education, particularly in secondary education (science and maths), third level (university sector) and in continued education and training (ideally through some other organisation instead of FÁS). The government's own policy document on the formation of the smart economy states that "Ireland is already laying the foundations of the ideas economy by investing significantly in education". However, the recent OECD report contradicts their assertions.

OECD Report

The recently published OECD annual "Education at a Glance" report suggests that in 2007 Ireland was spending just 4.7% of its income on education, placing us 30th out of the 33 OECD countries. The average spend was 5.7%. The report also shows that from 1995 to 2007 the proportion of GDP that went to education in Ireland fell by half a percentage point and, at the height of the boom, Ireland was spending significantly less of a proportion of its income on education compared to other OECD countries. The most significant disparity occured in the third level sector, with Ireland only spending 1.2% of income in this area, 0.3% below the average. The report continued to pluck holes in the governments retoric - Irish class sizes are amongst the highest in the OECD and second highest in the EU and that 39% of Irish teachers receive no evaluation on work performance, the highest of all OECD countries. (For the full report, click here.) Of course, the report does not include the dramatic cuts in education seen in last year's budget, which saw funding for free books for poor children withdrawn in 90% of schools, equipment and resource grants for resource teachers working with special needs children abolished, funding of €4.3m for Traveller children slashed, €2.1m gone from school library grants and pupil teacher ratios increase across all schools. So government policy and action clearly don't match up. These facts highlight that we need to increase funding in education in Ireland, and most certainly not make further cuts.

Standards in Maths and Science

Since the publication of this year's Leaving Certificate results on Wednesday, numerous commentators and multi-national companies have been commenting on the low standards in mathematics and science amongst this year's cohort. They are saying that the failure rates for maths and science subjects is unacceptably high and that this will have an negative effect on the government's plans for the development of a "smart economy". Such a smart economy is based around the facilitation of science, engineering and manufacturing companies employing well educated and well trained Irish graduates. This is a significant issue, but there is a clouding of the facts which needs to be addressed.

It is true to say that the numbers sitting Leaving Cert maths at higher level is too low. It is also fair to say that the failure rates in maths are too high. But I have a level of sympathy for the Department of Education and Skills on this issue. Firstly, maths is a compulsory subject at Leaving Cert level and the standards set are very high - comparable with Scottish Highers but slightly below the standards of A-Level (where pupils sit only three subjects) or International Baccalaureate (IB). This means that when comparing the results obtained by Irish pupils in mathematics with those in English, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or those sitting the IB, Irish pupils simply won't match up, as none of these system require compulsory mathematics in their terminal exams. Ireland is very much the exception rather than the norm in insisting on all pupils sit mathematics. In the UK, only 77,000 of the 310,000 pupils (around 24%) sitting A-Levels did mathematics, of which over a ridiculous 40% achieved an A grade (an A grade in Ireland is reserved for pupils obtaining 85% or above while in the UK a pupil achieving over 70% obtains an A grade). You simply cannot compare the two. If maths was to be made optional at Leaving Cert level, I am sure our standards would compare much more favourably with our nearest neighbours. Project Maths, the new initiative piloted this year, did produce slightly higher percentages of A grades and lower failure rates - but I think everyone expected that to happen. Whether this was because of a better understanding of the principles or a more lenient marking scheme, I don't know, but I do welcome a more practical and relevant approach to teaching and learning about mathematics. 

Bad Teachers

A lady, called Zenna Atkins, has said that every school needs a "bad teacher". She outlined that poor teaching staff gave pupils the invaluable experience of coping with incompetent people later in life. Who the hell is this moron? Well, Zenna Atkins currently holds the chair of the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) in the UK, essentially putting her in charge of inspecting schools in the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and ensuring they live up to standards. As a teacher, society should not tolerate bad teachers one bit! It is not good enough to suggest that they have a role in our children's social development! Poor teachers make good teachers look bad! Full stop!

I firmly believe that teachers play a vital role in society and to allow schools to be filled with teachers below a certain standard does little to promote our fine profession! It is my opinion that bad teachers should not be tolerated. In Ireland, teachers only complain about wages. Class sizes might be mentioned once or twice a year and the ASTI or TUI will utter something about behaviour every couple of years. But we (generally our unions) don't dare mention the elephant in the room - standards! Maybe if our unions addressed the standards issue it might make our claims for addition reward more compelling. I think we all need to be accountable for the work we do. I don’t believe we should be judged on the results our pupils attain in terminal examinations necessarily but I do believe we need to have some level of assessment – even if internally. Our inspectorate does little in this regard and their reports are often vague, never highlighting very poor or, possibly even more importantly, exceptional practice. We need to assess how teachers perform and reward the teachers that go beyond the minimum standards.