Absence of necessary structural changes to assessment has 'inhibited' Junior Cycle reform

All exams were delivered under the new curriculum for the first time in 2022. Picture: Ben Birchall

The absence of necessary structural changes to assessment has “inhibited” teachers and students from experiencing Junior Cycle reform as originally intended, a study examining the impact of the changes has suggested.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment has published the fifth and final report by researchers at the University of Limerick focused on the impact of the new Junior Cycle.

The major reforms began their rollout 10 years ago. 

All exams were delivered under the new curriculum for the first time in 2022.

Among the reforms was the introduction of classroom-based assessments (CBAs), which prompted industrial action throughout 2015 and 2016 by teachers’ unions.

The study notes how a key aspect of the framework for Junior Cycle “was to provide more of a balance between knowledge and skills and to introduce a dual form of assessment, thus reducing the focus on the terminal examination". 

This was originally intended to be introduced with two assessment components for each subject, a schoolwork component completed during the Junior Cycle and a terminal examination.

However, changes in 2015 following negotiations with the unions “resulted in several modifications, particularly in assessment where the schoolwork component was not allocated the marks originally intended". 

“This cemented the centrality of the terminal examination.” 

As a result, it appears that the introduction of CBAs “increased student workload as it was adopted as an additional component rather than a substitute for other requirements”, it added.

Researchers said it is "evident" that the negotiated changes to the assessment arrangements “resulted in an incoherent curriculum that undermined the key intentions of the original curriculum changes proposed through the partnership process and consultation". 

It added: “The absence of the necessary structural changes to assessment inhibited teachers and students from experiencing the Framework as was originally intended in the 2012 version.” 

Researchers also suggested it is “critical” to acknowledge in future debates that teachers and students did not experience changes as it was originally intended.

“As a result, it should not be concluded that the intended changes do not ‘work’, as the necessary conditions for enactment were not fully realised.” 

Researchers also noted that throughout this study, “the Leaving Certificate programme cast a long shadow”. 

While Leaving Cert reform “will likely create greater acceptance” of the reformed Junior Cycle, it also has the potential to “to strengthen the subservient relationship that exists between the two programmes".

A spokesperson for the Teachers’ Union of Ireland said the practitioner's voice is critical to any educational reform. 

In the case of the Junior Cycle, the teacher's voice was initially not properly listened to, forcing teacher unions to undertake a campaign of industrial action, he added.

This ensured that a clause was included in the agreement with a view to protecting students and schools from overassessment, he said.

“It was also significant that teacher unions secured professional time for teachers to carry out the new duties associated with the new programme.” 

Current Senior Cycle redevelopment must be “appropriately resourced, the integrity of assessment models must be upheld and it must not increase the workload of teachers or the pressure on students”, he added.

The Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland did not respond to a request to comment.