Plan to reform Leaving Cert Irish and English must be shelved

Let’s make meaningful change. Not change for change’s sake, writes Shane Ó Coinn 

'Teachers of Irish have particularly grave concerns about what is being proposed as there is no evidence of any sound educational or linguistic basis for this decision.'

The Minister for Education announced in March of last year that Leaving Certificate Paper 1 for Irish and English would move to the end of fifth year beginning in September 2023. This decision came as a shock to the educational community, as it was not something that was previously mooted, planned for, requested or anticipated.

This plan was packaged as an interim measure as part of the overall reform of Senior Cycle, under the apparent auspices of reducing pressure on students, as it will be a number of years before noticeable reform at Senior Cycle takes place. There is little evidence to suggest, however, that this proposal will reduce pressure on students. On the contrary, there is much evidence to suggest that this is not an educationally sound decision and that it will adversely affect student outcomes.

Teachers of Irish have particularly grave concerns about what is being proposed as there is no evidence of any sound educational or linguistic basis for this decision.

When acquiring a language students learn different language skills (speaking, writing, reading, listening) in tandem with one another. Speaking skills are developed in conjunction with listening skills, writing skills are developed in conjunction with reading skills, and so on.

What is being proposed would mean that some of these skills (for example the listening and creative writing skills) would only be assessed in 5th year, with the other language skills assessed in 6th year. This shows a complete misunderstanding of how a language is learned. It is completely inappropriate and educationally unsound to artificially segregate the assessment of the different language skills between year 1 and year 2 of a course. Language skills are not learned in isolation like that. To proceed as planned would severely hinder the natural language acquisition process.

What is being proposed goes completely against international best-practice regarding the use of a multi-faceted approach in language learning. A decision such as this would hinder students’ ability to acquire the language effectively.

Furthermore, significant changes to the examination system of a subject as proposed, should not be made without a full review of the syllabus taking place first and appropriate changes being made. No such review has taken place and nor is there any evidence that any research has been conducted to consider the suitability of these changes for the teaching of the language. A review would take time and this decision seems rushed. This is extremely concerning.

To implement a major change like this you would also expect teachers to receive extensive inservice training and to be provided with sample examination papers outlining the changes at least a full school year in advance. These changes are due to occur in a number of months, yet there is no evidence to suggest that there are any plans for this to happen.

Perplexing

The rationale for this decision is even more perplexing when you consider that the long-term plan for Senior Cycle reform is to reduce the reliance on the final examinations. Long term it is planned that all subjects will have a 40% additional component other than the written exam. (The movement of the papers is seen as an interim measure) Yet Irish is already one of the subjects that has a 40% component other than the written exam. 40% of the marks already go towards the oral component, and this already reduces the pressure linked to the written exam. The rationale behind the movement of Paper 1 for Irish, therefore, is flawed and it is difficult to see the merit in proceeding with this educationally unsound plan.

To make things even more complex, new draft specifications to reform the Senior Cycle Irish course were already in development when this change was announced.

 Instead of waiting and making meaningful changes to the examination system when a new course is introduced, we are instead making patchwork changes to the current course.

 Rather than putting our efforts into developing a new improved course for the teaching of Irish, we are now putting our efforts into making pointless changes to the current course, changes that will not improve the learning and teaching of Irish.

It is not just Irish teachers that have serious concerns, English teachers do too and, as a Freedom of Information request revealed, the State Examinations Commission has also expressed concern. They expressed a view that this change would adversely impact on students’ performance in orals, that moving the essay to fifth year would seriously disadvantage boys, and it was noted that moving paper 1 and paper 2 apart would require an extensive review of the specifications. Schools are also expressing concern that this proposal will adversely impact on other subjects and that it will force curtailment of extra-curricular activities for fifth year students including sport, debating, musicals, and trips — meaning that worthwhile experiences that build real-life skills will be curtailed for an exam. Surely this is not what was intended. The saying “Aois na hÓige, Aois na Glóire” may no longer ring true if this proposal is introduced.

As Irish teachers we would like to see this proposal shelved and that instead we immediately begin to develop a comprehensive policy for the teaching of Irish from pre-school to third level, including meaningful reform of the Irish courses at Junior Cycle and Senior Cycle. We are in favour of change and want to resolve the problems in the system to improve the learning and teaching of Irish. Let’s put our focus on this. Let’s make meaningful change. Not change for change’s sake.

Shane Ó Coinn Múinteoir Gaeilge, Dún Dealgan and Chairperson of An Gréasán do Mhúinteoirí Gaeilge (the subject association for teachers of Irish)