The Junior Cert Reform Glass is Half-Full!

The current Junior Certificate was introduced in 1989 with the first exams in 1992. It replaced the Intermediate Certificate and was heralded as being a much more modern qualification. In the interim it has become a content-heavy “Leaving Cert Lite” with parents, students and teachers alike extolling its virtues as being “good practise for the points race”. Reform is therefore welcome and overdue if we are to address issues of curriculum overload, rote-learning and outdated ways of assessment in our education system.

Many of the proposals in our submission to the NCCA review have found a place in the final plan and we are pleasantly surprised at some of the elements proposed. From a “gifted” perspective there is much to be applauded and welcomed. Children learn in so many different ways and this document recognises that all children should get the opportunity to show what they can do within the exam system and outside of it. Of particular interest are the short courses which give students welcome scope to follow their talents and strengths. Many children already take part in activities both in and outside school from sports to music to computers to theatre. Lots of them shine in this their chosen environment. It is a very positive thing that their commitment to participation in a wide range of activities can be recognised and rewarded.

The new system may have much to commend it, but it also raises many questions. How will teachers respond? Will they think it will merely increases their workload? How will they feel about assessing their own students, long a hot-button issue for the teachers unions? Will some subjects fade into obscurity if they are not examination subjects? What implication does the new Junior Cycle have for Transition Year? What will happen to the Leaving Cert if students are examined differently for Junior Cert? Will it have the desired effect on Literacy and Numeracy, and the infamous Pisa study? And the biggest one of all; is this merely a dumbing down, no child gets ahead, minimum achievement proposition?

The jury is out for now, it will probably take a few years to see the results, but I believe that good schools have nothing to fear from the changes. It will finally show parents what the “league tables” don’t. Schools have been telling us for years that a fairer way to judge the education provided by individual schools would be to consider all activities, sports, co-curricular, learning support measures and exemplary school leadership in addition to academics. This is an opportunity to show us exactly that. It will tell us which schools have strong effective leadership. It will separate good teachers from poor ones. It will show us how good school management produces real results. It will showcase innovative, inclusive and imaginative schools. It will identify those schools which genuinely support all types of learners, including those with difficulties and those who are boxed in by the current exam system.

There was a recent article in The Irish Times about a school in County Limerick which in the space of a few years turned itself around from being on the brink of closure to being one of the most desired schools in the locality. It did this through innovative leadership and a strong vision of what they wanted to achieve. This school should be the inspiration for all schools and teachers who look on this new Junior Cert as a negative development. Coláiste Chiaráin was at rock-bottom and used the same resources available to every other school to create a learning environment second to none. They didn’t see the glass as half-empty, they looked to fill it to the brim. I’m guessing they won’t see the new Junior Cert as anything other than an opportunity. I hope other schools can do likewise.

The responses so far have been mixed, but a central theme has been funding. Some teachers of my acquaintance want to know where the money for their training will come from. They say that without huge investment this will never work. I am starting to wonder if that's a prediction or a threat. We have had enough negativity in Ireland in the last few years. It is time to change the way we view the challenges ahead. Instead of feeling sorry for ourselves, looking for flaws in every new development with our typical Irish Peig Sayers-like keening why don’t we seek out the positives and make them work? The can-do approach which is the hallmark of the most admired entrepreneurs and innovators in Ireland and throughout the world should be to the forefront of our minds as we head into this new Junior Cycle. Enough complaining, let's get on with ensuring that our children have a first-class learning experience. My glass is half-full, how is yours looking?

Junior Cycle Reform, Here We Come!

Following a lengthy period of consultation with teachers, students, parents and anyone who wished to have a say, the NCCA has put forward a new Framework for Junior Cycle. This has been approved by the Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn, and is due to be implemented from 2014, meaning that children now in 5th class in primary school will be the last to go through the Junior Certificate as we know it now.

This new model has drawn mixed responses. Given that it incorporates many of the elements which our support group wished for in the Junior Cycle Portfolio which we submitted to the NCCA, we cannot be anything but pleased!

The new framework will, in my opinion,  allow schools and teachers to really get stuck in and do something innovative. No longer will the Junior Certificate be all about rote learning and regurgitation in which success depends on learning how to play the game and know how to score points on the test rather than display knowledge and understanding of a subject. Now, there will be the potential for students to explore areas which interest them to a level which matches their ability. It should be all about learning to learn and being excited by the process, rather than turned off by the whole idea. However, the success of the new model will be very much dependent on the attitude and skill of individual schools and teachers. Schools with enthusiastic innovative leadership and passionate teachers will take it and make it their own. I  imagine that teaching in such an environment will be far more enjoyable too and there are teachers who are already champing at the bit to get going. Success will depend on the ability of each school and teacher to engage students and create an environment in which they want to participate. Enthusiasm is infectious.

There are, admittedly, many challenges ahead. A high level of innovation will be required when it comes to subject choices and time-tabling. If some students are preparing for the end-of-junior-cycle exam in a subject, will all others taking that subject take the same classes with them? Will this stunt creativity in that class? Much will depend on the type of assessment/examination at the end. Let’s hope it doesn’t perpetuate teaching-to-the-test. Cross-curricular modules or classes would be very worthwhile, but how can these be facilitated while also preparing students for the Junior Certificate exams in discrete subjects and at different levels? The ASTI has raised concerns about teachers assessing their own students' work. That will require integrity and professionalism on the part of teachers and trust on the part of parents, but it has been achieved in other countries, so there must be a way.

While it is important that we strive to ensure that as many as possible reach certain minimum standards, recognition for talent in other areas is to be welcomed. There are many valuable life-lessons to be learned from participation in areas beyond the scope of the current education system, such as the arts, technology and sport. No fifteen year old should be made to feel a failure simply because they score poorly in an academic setting. I suppose the question we must ask ourselves, is “what is the goal of second level education?” Personally, I believe that it should be to produce young adults who are equipped to go out into the world and to participate in society as fully, positively and productively as possible, given their own unique skill-set. 

One element about which I have some reservations in the standardised testing proposed for the end of second year. There is value to this insofar as it allows schools to ensure that all students reach a certain minimum standard. However, there is the risk that, once this standard has been reached, the box is considered ticked and all is well. For students of exceptional ability, all is not well at all. What is not often appreciated is that these students  may be able to perform at a level several years above their grade level. Standardised testing allows no room for their ability or progress to be monitored. With a ceiling in place, how do we know they aren’t, in fact, disimproving over time relative to their own ability?

Then there are those exceptionally able students who, for whatever reason, just don’t do well in standardised tests. Some look at multiple-choice questions and, because of their ability to think deeply and around corners, may see several possible correct answers and not know which box to tick. Some may have a learning disability which brings their score down. As long as it falls within acceptable limits, they tick the box and their ability and disability, having masked each other, both go unnoticed.

Having said that, I believe that with a combination of the new Junior Cycle Framework and some basic instruction on the characteristics and needs of gifted students during pre-service teacher training, then such children could be far more easily identified than at present. Indeed, the new model, implemented well, is just the sort of environment in which these children could be allowed to stretch their wings and learn how to use their ability with pride. It’s just a shame that none of these changes will come in time for my own children to benefit.