Pages

Saturday, August 21, 2010

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. 

Secondly, it seems rather unfair to me that media and other commentators are on one hand criticising the Leaving Cert for unacceptable levels of failures in maths and science, but on the other hand are accusing the State Examinations Commission (SEC) of grade inflation. This leaves the SEC in a bit of a predicament - lower the standards and the failure rates decrease but be criticised for making the exams and marking schemes too easy. It is safe to say that the Leaving Cert has seen nothing like the grade inflation evident in UK A-Levels, where over 40% of people achieve A's in most subjects and only a tiny percentage fail. We should be proud of the high standards the SEC have set in the Leaving Cert examinations and be glad that grade inflation is not a major factor in Irish education. As a Guidance Counsellor, it often upsets me that an Irish pupil that achieves 6 A's in their Leaving Cert is seen as comparable by UK universities to a pupil achieving 3 A's at A-Level - I'm sorry but you simply cannot compare the two. Achieving 6 A's in the Leaving Cert is a feat left only for the elite, while A-Level grade inflation means obtaining 3 A's is no real challenge. We can easily lower our standards and make a mockery of the Leaving Cert and put its value down close to that of A-Levels, but what would that serve to prove.

As for the sciences, again the standards set in these subjects are very high so high failure rates are to be expected. Are we to lower the standards to allow more pupils achieved higher grades and fewer pupils failing - only to be criticised for unnecessary grade inflation? The term "stuck between a rock and a hard place" comes to mind. Again, you must also consider the numbers of pupils sitting sciences at Leaving Cert compared to other systems. Over 50% of all pupils this year in Ireland this year sat biology at Leaving Cert level, compared to just 14% in the UK. Similar trends exist for chemistry and physics. This is the result of pupils having to sit a minimum of six subjects - with many keeping their university options open by choosing at least one science subject. Many of these pupils have no interest in or aptitude for the sciences, yet are forced to choose one of these subjects and ultimately suffer the consequences. If we were to narrow the focus of the Leaving Cert by just asking our candidates to sit three or four subjects in their final exams, these pupils wouldn't need to study a subject they had no interest in and I'd imagine our figures would be very impressive in comparison to UK numbers. Similarly, the pupils gifted in science and maths are forced to study other subjects which they may have no interest in. This time could (and should) be used to further develop their mathematical skills, problem solving skills or on laboratory investigations in science. By having interested pupils in their classes (no matter what subject), teachers can move at an accelerated rate cover more ground and spend more time on difficult concepts. 

But I will make one criticism of the SEC on the science issue and that is the disparity of standards in chemistry and physics compared to biology. The academic profile of the chemistry or physics pupil is generally higher than that of the pupil sitting biology, yet the percentage of pupils achieving A's at higher level are generally the same. In my eyes, the SEC are doing the pupil sitting chemistry or physics no favours here. These pupils are generally able to obtain an A in biology more easily than in chemistry or physic and that is unfair. All subjects examiners should take note of the academic profile of the pupils sitting the exam and standards should not be raised so that figures compare favourably with other subjects.

In conclusion, I do believe that if we genuinely aim to develop a "smart economy" in Ireland we need a mathematically literate pupil body. We need to produce science and engineering graduates who are comfortable with practical and relevant mathematics. But to compare our results in maths and sciences with those of our nearest neighbours is unfair and, frankly, irrelevant to the argument. The lack of compulsory mathematics in the UK, Scotland and even in the IB mean there can be no fair comparison. Also, obscene levels of grade inflation have not existed in the Leaving Cert and we should not criticise the SEC for maintaining good standards. They could easily decrease failure rates and increase A grades by reducing standards - but that serves no true purpose. Dangling the bonus point carrot will not result in any improvement in standards either - it will only mean reward the pupils who would obtain the A grade anyway. If we are to be serious about raising the standards in mathematics and sciences, then we should narrow the focus of the Leaving Cert. Pupils should be asked to sit just three or four subjects compared to the current six (in reality pupils sit seven or eight). By doing this we can expand the breadth of the curriculum - challenging the genuinely interested pupils and raising our standards, and our profile amongst universities and multi-nationals. This also means that pupils with no aptitude for particular subjects will not need to waste their time in classrooms or exam halls - time which could be used increasing their knowledge and skills in their strongest subjects. By creating a more focused Leaving Cert, with get more focused university entrants, thus more gifted graduates. We currently have a broad, multi faceted secondary education system. Such a system means that we create well rounded pupils who are able to work in a wide range of industries. The "smart economy" requires a different kind of learner - a more focused and possibly restricted learner. If the aims of education system have changed then our system needs to change accordingly. While many believe that the Leaving Cert's greatest strength is the broad and diverse education each pupil is exposed to, maybe, for our current government's wider goals, it's also its greatest weakness?

3 comments:

  1. I really enjoyed your post. I hadn't thought about the UK stats in that light before, but it all makes sense. I fully agree, something must change.

    However, I am not convinced that narrowing focus earlier is the answer either. My own son has just finished JC and is already going to struggle to choose subjects for the LC. If he could only choose 3 or 4, he's be really stumped. I don't believe that it would be a good thing if he had to part company with so many career options at the age of only 16.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To a certain degree yes, but I propose a three year senior cycle with Transition Year as a compulsory year - which is used to explore all the subjects and find the right career path for them - based on interest, aptitude and ability. I think the Leaving cert has served us well in its current format - but a new "smart economy" requires new "smart education".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good post. Puts the Leaving Cert in context.

    ReplyDelete