There are two enormous, glaring problems with the research recently published by the Irish Science Teachers Association (ISTA) about the new additional assessment components (AACs) in Leaving Cert science subjects. For these components, every student will have to carry out an individual laboratory-based investigation, worth 40 per cent of the total marks, amounting to some 50,000 investigations in biology, chemistry and physics.
The first problem is that this research should have been conducted years ago by the Department of Education, long before any senior cycle reform was implemented. Instead, it took volunteers from a teaching association to ask the obvious questions. The second is that this superb research may be ignored by anyone who has the power to effect change.
Prof Mike Watts conducted the independent analysis of an ISTA survey of science departments carried out last December. Anyone familiar with the pre-Christmas madness of exams, reports and much more in schools will be astonished at the high response rate to such a detailed survey.
Nearly half of all second-level schools responded, an indication of just how serious the issues are. The results show that it is just not possible to carry out these assessments safely or in a way that is fair to all students.
READ MORE
Watts, currently professor of education at Brunel University, London, has had a distinguished career deeply rooted in science education, curriculum development, and the professional accreditation of teachers. He is no stranger to Ireland, having worked closely with University College Cork for over 10 years as external examiner for the Bachelor of Science Education and Postgraduate Diploma in Education. This work expanded to University College Dublin, University of Galway and Maynooth University.
One of the reasons Watts agreed to be an independent analyst was because he describes the ISTA questionnaire as a “high-quality research instrument”.
Science teachers are deeply invested in evidence-based research. Far from opposing reform, they had been begging for the science curriculum to be updated, but they want reform to be safe and fair. Some teachers are calling the AACs the “AICs” because they will be extremely vulnerable to illicit AI use. However, important as this issue is, it has overshadowed other fundamental problems highlighted by teachers from the beginning.
Take fume cupboards, which protect students and staff from inhaling toxic substances by containing and extracting hazardous fumes, vapours, gases or dust produced during experiments. They also reduce the risks of fire or explosion while using volatile chemicals. Half of the schools have one or no fume cupboards.
The Department of Education seems to consider it an acceptable risk to conduct thousands of experiments in crowded labs without basic equipment.
The report states that “a substantial proportion of laboratories are 40–50+ years old”. Over one-quarter of all labs have received “no significant upgrade for more than 21 years”. The average time since any significant refurbishment is 14 years.
Seventy-four per cent of schools do not have adequate lab space; 45 per cent of the schools indicated that about one-third or more of science lessons are taught in ordinary classrooms, with 21 per cent reporting that more than half of the lessons are not in labs.
The Department of Education has allocated significant funds to upgrade labs, but it goes nowhere near bridging the gap. People are currently teaching fifth years the reformed science subjects in grim conditions with no respite in sight.
A significant minority of teachers have worked elsewhere in Europe, or New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates and Dubai, where there are comparable assessment components (although the average mark allocated is only 20 per cent). The contrast is stark. “Teachers consistently highlighted that overseas systems typically provided dedicated laboratory technicians (often subject-specific), teaching assistants, well-equipped permanent laboratories, small class sizes of approximately 10-12 students and extensive preparation of equipment and chemicals in advance.”
In Ireland, 24 students is the norm; 94 per cent of schools do not have a lab technician, and even in the mostly private schools that do, a single lab technician is available only an average of 20 hours a week. The unsustainable increased workload all falls on teachers in the absence of lab technicians.
Good educational reform listens to teachers. When the State Examinations Commission faced problems with staffing the proposed new English oral, it was delayed for a year. When teachers said the assessments in science presented an unacceptable health and safety risk, the subjects were introduced anyway.
Watts suggests an excellent alternative to the current AACs. Authenticated lab notebooks could be completed contemporaneously by students over two years, covering mandatory experiments and field investigations. These detailed notes and observations could then form the basis for an externally examined oral exam. This would be much fairer and much more educationally sound.
The only rational thing to do is to immediately implement Watts’s recommendation to pause the AACs. Failing to do so will widen the divide between the well-off and the already disadvantaged. Not to mention that eventually, Leaving Cert students will face seven AACs and seven terminal exams, with a predictable negative impact on stress and mental health. But will rationality prevail?
