So the heavens did not fall, after all. The Leaving Certificate results show that, far from being disadvantaged, the class of 2001 are one of the most successful ever. As yet, no queue has formed to apologise to teachers who were accused of using their own students as hostages. Instead the predictable snide comments that this proves teachers are far from indispensable are to be heard.
Although I understood exactly why teachers felt driven to it, I never felt that any tactic which could be perceived as attacking the Leaving Cert was either right or likely to be productive. At the same time, I felt certain that teachers would do their best to get courses covered and ensure time lost did not disadvantage their pupils. The results indicate that this is exactly what happened.
After the exam results, moderate student voices who expressed understanding of the teachers' action were given ample air time, in stark contrast to the time of the dispute itself.
Perhaps such a balance might be continued when teachers resume their attempts to secure adequate reward for a stressful and demanding job.
Being negatively affected by the teachers' dispute ensured great sympathy from the media. A touch hypocritical, given that the media bear responsibility for much of the hype and therefore the pressure which surrounds the exam itself.
Token cliches are trotted out about the stress it places on young people, but the traditional Leaving Cert suits the media nicely. Not only does it fill space during the silly season, but for newspapers it offers excuses for all kinds of supplements during the year. It is a profitable little earner. All in the public interest, of course.
Feargus Denman, he of the nine A1s, seems to be a pleasant and well-rounded young man, but I hate the annual parade of the highest points-achiever.
It underscores yet again that the Leaving Cert is really all about the highest points, whatever platitudes we may mouth. When I think of some of the people I taught in the past, who conquered dyslexia or difficult home situations to achieve Leaving Cert results which would never make the front page of this newspaper, but which were still well-nigh miraculous, I feel even more angry.
While many deplore the fact that the Leaving Cert is so hard on young people at the time when they are making the difficult transition to adulthood, there is also a deep resistance to changing it in any way. Part of it is the smug pride of those who have survived the ordeal and who believe that if it was good enough for them, why tamper with this particular rite of passage?
Others believe that the Leaving Cert is one of the few mechanisms in this society where who you know and what your income is do not matter, because all are equal facing the same exam paper. That is true as far as it goes, but ignores all the inequalities which precede the actual day of the exam.
Coming from a background where parents book a place in a private school after the first ante-natal scan which determines the sex of the child is rather different from coming from a home where everyone left school to work at 16.
The traditional Leaving Cert rewards a good memory and an ability to synthesise and re-present facts in a form acceptable to examiners. Those whose abilities fall outside these narrow parameters are working at a disadvantage from the start. The newer programmes, such as the Leaving Cert Applied and the Leaving Certificate Vocational Programme, measure a much broader range of skills.
A very important discussion document on the future of the senior cycle and how we should mark the end of second-level education will be published by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) this autumn. Hopefully, it will sponsor a lively debate. However, I do not think that change will come about readily.
Oddly, some of the greatest resistance will come from parents. Many of them prefer the cut-and-dried nature of the traditional exam. Witness the dismissal of transition year programmes as a doss year. In fact, they are often the most valuable time students have, as they are allowed to research for themselves, sample work situations and develop interests other than the narrowly academic.
I do have some sympathy for those who fear that any interference with the traditional Leaving Cert will lead to dumbing down or faddism. We only have to look at some of the excesses of so-called child centred education to see those fears are not without some foundation.
We have had a generation of children who were encouraged to write creatively but could not spell. They proudly assert their right to their opinions, but are much less enamoured of the idea that opinions are so much hot air unless backed by fact and coherent argument. Changing the form of assessment is a minefield, although this does not mean that change is not necessary or desirable. Teachers have been accused of being bloody-minded for not enthusiastically embracing continuous assessment.
Oddly enough, this accusation often comes from those who most extol the impartial nature of the traditional Leaving Cert. Yet continuous assessment of one's own pupils removes that impartiality.
The challenge for the NCCA will be to maintain a tradition of academic excellence while acknowledging that there are other skills and talents which should and can be recognised. The expertise of teachers should be mined, as many of them have very clear ideas as to how their own subject could be better taught and assessed.
Perhaps most importantly, those who have recently sat the Leaving Cert should be consulted. It is the least we could do, given that they were forced to sit an exam so stressful that getting drunk out of your mind is considered a normal response to passing it.
bobrien@irish-times.ie