Anything new needs powerful branding and a solid marketing team behind it. Until the new Junior Cycle rollout most of us didn’t realise that this also applies to educational reforms. Thanks to poor marketing the new Junior Cycle has more going for it than most teachers will ever see. Its merits outnumber its failings, but this remains lost on many thanks to a failure to recognise that it only had one chance to make a first impression.
My biggest 'content' gripe lies in the grade bands for the Junior Cycle exams, and indeed for the Leaving Certificate too
It was peddled with equal doses of enthusiasm and naivety, to teachers who by and large fell into a massive vacuum somewhere between the two. What became clear is that to put together a project as huge as Junior Cycle reform is one thing, to bring it to market quite another. There are very serious lessons to be learned from that for Senior Cycle reform. The content itself is merely one of many aspects, and we know that now.
Knowing one’s client is also key. Educational reform only needs to be successfully sold to one stakeholder for the rest to run smoothly. Appropriate inclusion and consideration of teachers means that complaints from unions need not feature heavily in the narrative. Getting a critical mass of teachers on board is a total game changer for any new initiative. Our enthusiasm rubs off on our pupils, and so does our lack of it! Parents, the third stakeholder, are unlikely to go against the two who spend their days in the classroom.
My biggest “content” gripe lies in the grade bands for the Junior Cycle exams, and indeed for the Leaving Certificate too.
With the now-defunct Junior Certificate we had a total of seven bands, the lowest being "no grade" and awarded to those achieving under 10 per cent. From there it was six bands covering equal 15 per cent ranges. Under the new system the top grade is the narrower one, and therefore there is just a 10 per cent range for the highest reward, the "distinction", allocated to those who achieve in excess of 90 per cent.
The large section from 55-89 per cent covers just two descriptors. (We may label them descriptors but they are still grade bands. “If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck ...”.) Within this squeezed middle of just two categories, the top 15 per cent are awarded a “higher merit” and the bottom 20 per cent a “merit”. Those from 40-54 per cent are awarded the status of having “achieved”, making a result between 20 per cent and 39 per cent worthy of “partially achieved”. According to the new system below 20 per cent is “not graded”. So the new (allegedly improved) approach offers a reduction in the number of grade bands, and also varies the size of them. Put another way, three equal categories above 55 per cent have become three of very different sizes.
You may be wondering where I am going with this. Differentiation means that in my class of 29 there are 29 individuals, each bringing their own particular academic profile and set of learning requirements. My experience so far of Junior Cycle tells me that the assessment bands are anti-differentiation. Think anti-discrimination, but here it is anti-positive discrimination!
Some of our super learners are getting pushed back into a squeezed middle which could suck them dry of the very motivation they will need to climb out of it and towards a higher grade in a Leaving Certificate exam. If they give it their all for a distinction which then eludes them, how are they to brace themselves for a more arduous climb with any genuine conviction that they will succeed?
Both sets of grade bands are due an overhaul. Or do we want our squeezed middle to become a settled mediocrity?
Early in my career I learned from fellow teachers who were significantly more experienced than me that “centring” when grading was an absolute no-no. Being willing to avail of the whole range of marks sends a clear message to students that there is no such thing as “it’s impossible to get an A” or “everyone always passes”.
Using the full breadth of the scale does generate more work, as it can involve challenging conversations with the parents of those not doing so well, or producing something extra to stimulate those who are truly excelling. Both of these are worth it to see how pupils improve and thrive as a result. To over rely on the middle ground is to create a perception in students that this is most likely where they will end up. A sense of inevitability about the eventual result impacts on the effort made during the task.
These young people are still in their formative years, and this is key to my concern about our State Examination practices. Given that the new Junior Cycle is a low-stakes assessment scenario, I struggle to see the need to quell ambition by offering so little to aim for in the upper grade bands. It is especially disconcerting to see that a pattern seems to be emerging here in Ireland around this. Take the Leaving Certificate grade bands as we knew them until 2017.
Until then you had two shots at an A grade: 90 per cent or more earned a candidate a coveted A1 and there was also an A2 for those who achieved between 85- 89 per cent. Under the new system those with 89 per cent and 80 per cent are awarded the same grade, a H2 (or an O2 at ordinary level). So again in Senior Cycle the trend is to push the sense of achievement further out of a student’s reach.
In my view both sets of grade bands are due an overhaul. Or do we want our squeezed middle to become a settled mediocrity? Is that in young people’s best interest? Surely we can instead encourage our students to aim higher for longer rather than to settle for less sooner.
