Mary Hanafin's suggested reforms of the Leaving Certificate do not go far enough, writes Frances Ruane
Much of the commentary on the Junior and Leaving Certificate examinations in the media in recent weeks has focused on the extent to which any given paper meets the expectations of students and teachers, in terms of both topics covered and types of question asked. Papers failing to meet these expectations are condemned in tones of outrage as being "unfair" to students.
This perception of unfairness arises largely from the current style of learning in second-level education, in which rote-learning techniques take increasing precedence over the development of analytical skills.
Consequently, teachers' powers to predict accurately the set of exam topics and style of questions become as important to their pupils' success as the quality of their teaching. The examinations rarely allow the students time to think. Those who spend time thinking will often gain fewer marks than others who can simply reel off the set answers.
As a result, most students are preoccupied with retaining what they have absorbed just for the examination, rather than with understanding the content of their courses or developing their intellectual curiosity.
While the Minister's proposals to stagger the Leaving Certificate examination may reduce the final stress (and arguments have been suggested as to why they might not succeed), they will do nothing as things stand to alter the patterns of rote-learning.
Her proposals for assessment at primary school may over the longer term contribute more, if they succeed in refocusing attention on the primary goals of education. But can we wait that long?
In their defence, the Leaving and Junior Certificate examinations can be said to be "fair" examinations in the sense that each child faces the same mid- or end-point hurdle in his/her school career.
But that is the extent of their fairness. Pupils' learning experiences differ depending on their access to in-school resources, such as high-quality teachers and laboratory equipment, and their access to out-of-school resources, such as extracurricular activities supporting their studies, organised revision courses and additional learning support.
The quality of our education system can significantly enhance individuals' life-chances and, equally important, quality is key to Ireland's continuing economic prosperity and overall social well-being. If we are striving to become a knowledge society, then education, as the major source of potential human capital in each new generation, is vital.
Equally relevant is the role education can play, inter alia, in promoting social integration and equality of opportunity. In our increasingly multicultural society, schools are an important conduit through which individuals and families integrate socially. They are where cultural similarities and differences emerge.
Despite the rhetoric, little real consideration appears to have been given to a vital issue: what type of education yields the necessary human capital able to respond to future socioeconomic challenges and opportunities?
Whether in the arts or the sciences, students need to develop the ability to process and analyse "content" rather than to memorise "facts". Simply increasing the numbers going to third-level education is unlikely to result in the social and economic benefits expected, if the students do not have the analytical skills to profit from higher levels of education.
All of the above suggests that education should be at the centre of economic and social policymaking in Ireland. But strangely, it remains largely outside the mainstream policy processes. For example, it is not represented on the National Economic and Social Council (NESC), the forum in which most of the major social/economic policy issues are discussed and which is a vital element of the social partnership process.
In the past, the Department of Education and Science (DES) has been criticised for its preoccupation with operational issues (in particular the examinations system) and its lack of policy focus. Time has passed since the publication of the Cromien report, which emphasised the department's need to be more policy-orientated, and yet the department remains on the periphery of mainstream policy.
Perhaps there should be an increased role for the DES in the social partnership process if it was recognised that the challenges with which Ireland's education system is grappling mirror the broader challenges facing our society. Clearly the social partners as well as the DES should be concerned, inter alia, with: