“The need for such grinds stems from fear of underachieving on the day and a pressure from friends to do more and more. What a student does in school is never seen as enough.” 

Published in 2019, before the onset of the global covid-19 pandemic, and the astonishingly rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), the ESRI found a good deal of consensus about the Leaving Cert exams during a major body of research it undertook examining views on the senior cycle.

It noted that all the groups it spoke with “highlighted the workload involved, with teachers and students under pressure to ‘cover the course’, resulting in a focus on rote learning in order to prepare for the Leaving Certificate examination and a reduced focus on higher order thinking and broader skill development". 

“This situation was seen as having a negative impact on student wellbeing, with reduced involvement in extra-curricular and social activities to the detriment of young people’s broader development." it said.

"Not surprisingly, students were particularly vocal about the impact on their stress levels, with even junior cycle students expressing apprehension at the pressure involved at senior cycle level.” 

It said the current system is seen by many as favouring particular ways of learning, "thus providing limited pathways to success, especially for those with a more practical orientation and those with special educational needs".

It is the exam-focused approach that students, parents and teachers see as facilitating “rote learning, with a focus on memorising material at the expense of authentic understanding and a neglect of the development and assessment of broader skills”.

Leaving Cert reform

Leaving Cert reform has been in the works for a number of years, even prior to the major disruption and upheaval to the exam cycle caused by the pandemic.

It has been examined behind the scenes by policy makers and researchers, while also being in focus politically through various different Ministers for Education and often discussed and debated by the Oireachtas education committee.

The cancellation of the exams in 2020, and the subsequent changes to the exam cycle in the following years, stood to highlight that change was possible, albeit with opposition at times, and mistakes along the way.

There have been roll-backs and opposition to announcements. Now, from next September, the major changes are set to be rolled out across four subjects as part of ‘accelerated’ reform announced last year by Education Minister Norma Foley.

Those who have argued for reform have pointed to the need to move away from rote-learning, and to place a higher emphasis on skills not as easily demonstrated through a written exam.

Defenders of the Leaving Cert argue that while the exam-based model is high stakes, everyone receives the same piece of paper on the day, and it's the student and their pencil against the clock.

Under the current reforms, each subject will have an additional assessment component (AAC) worth at least 40% of marks.

It's important to keep in mind that almost three quarters of all Leaving Cert subjects already have an equivalent in the form of either oral and aural exams, practical performances, coursework or project work.

This varies from 40% in Irish, through the oral exams, to 25% in European languages such as French, German and Spanish.

Practical coursework makes up 50% of a student’s marks in Leaving Cert Art, and in Home Economics the written exam itself is just worth 65%, with students completing a practical test and project work prior.

However, the introduction and roll-out of the AACs will likely face the most opposition and contention as reform plans advance further next year. At times through the process, planned changes have faced stiff opposition. 

Teachers in Ireland have long defended their position in the classroom as teacher, as opposed to examiner, voicing concerns around any moves to introduce any form of assessing their own students. They argue that adding the responsibility of determining a student's marks, especially in cases where they know what it may mean to their personal circumstances, undermines their role as educators.

Artificial Intelligence

However, as previously highlighted by this newspaper, AI is now so advanced that very easily students could use freely available software to generate entirely fictional but completely realistic projects, of which it will be virtually impossible to detect.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) published recent guidelines on AACs, which at the same time as describing material generated with AI as plagiarism, also clear the way for AI to be used as long as it is referenced. This is in the same way a student would quote a book or newspaper article.

The State Examinations Commission (SEC), which will be responsible for the external marking on AACs, is keeping a “watching brief” on all issues that have the potential to threaten the integrity of the exams, including generative AI.

According to the SEC, students must complete any coursework under the supervision of the class teacher so that “the teacher can monitor progress on a regular basis and be in a position at the coursework completion date to verify that the work is the candidate’s own individual work".

Herein lies the crux of the matter; the burden to make sure work has been authenticated now seems to lie solely on class teachers and school principals.

It will not be possible for all coursework to be completed in front of a teacher, as there will be work required by students at home and after school, particularly if AACs are introduced for all subjects.

Many teachers are rightly wondering what steps they follow if they suspect AI has been used, or how it is escalated or handled. Many are fundamentally opposed to the idea that they will have to police the use of virtually undetectable software instead of focusing on teaching.

Opposition to AACs is not expected to go away anytime soon. History risks repeating itself, however, when you look at Junior Cycle ‘classroom-based assessments’ which do not go towards a student's final marks in a subject, following stiff opposition from the teaching unions.

Many now see these projects as an additional "stressor” for students that inadvertently increases teachers' workloads.