Since my days sitting the JC, I've held the same "shocking" position towards schools, to the chagrin of my relatives and others. My position is no less diminished as an adult than it was as a teenager, and it is this: the state exams have always been bureaucratic, cruel, inefficient and a charade for class privilege. They are counter productive; they discourage otherwise clever people from educating themselves, which has shown to have damaging effects on the individual and society. I feel the same way about the JC and LC as I do about uniforms (another topic I've been lambasted for over the years) - they should be abolished. The need for this has been highlighted by current events. The attempt by the Government to force through the exams has only served amplified that unfairness, that bureaucracy, that dogma. It has exposed the nonsense of the whole thing; this was a reason the Government hestitated for so long to finally cancel. The realisation is, the LC ain't that important. I certainly can't remember the last time I was asked about it during an interview. It's only important as one of two methods of ensuring class privilege by monopolising desirable positions through university courses. The second method is by paying for them.
Some have suggested that the LC is "flawed" etc. but should nonetheless be "phased-out". The phasing-out of anything during an emergency such as the coronavirus is particularly ridiculous. Apparently we should be phasing it out after the crisis? Next year, over three years? Well, suggest that to the 61,000 students anxious about sitting in crowded exam halls this year! Say it to those too, who understand the risk of community transmission and are eager to see the virus disappear... vulnerable parents and grandparents. Even the Minister for Education was compelled to say, 'I have compelling evidence, based on medical advice and other assessments, that the Leaving Certificate examinations cannot be held in a reliable and valid manner, nor in way that would be equitable for students' (Irish Times, 8th May).
"It's the fault of the procrastinators... all the Leaving Cert
curriculum was covered before Christmas". I'm not sure what or who this argument is targetting. Is it against those who have no interest or motivation to study for the LC? If so, then why force them? They'll be given their predicted grades, and in the meantime, they can move on with activities of more interest to them, and of more benefit to society - remember, the LC process was unfair to them anyway. Or is the argument a cry of sympathy with those who have studied? If so, the studious are virtually guaranteed to recieve good predicted grades without the anxiety of sitting the exam. They will benefit from the hard work they have already done. Many of them are relieved that there hard work will not be undermined by uncertainty of the date and location of exams, the added anxiety of catching a virus during the exam, and the detrimental impact on their results all this concern would cause. The "bell curve" method will still
be used to grade (another unfair method, as someone has to fail), so the outcomes will be more or less
the same. The most that will frustrate the studious is
the annoyance of having studied until now when they might have given up a month
ago - it is nothing more than annoyance, which the relief of assured grades will more than assuage. But that's the whole point that those
students were trying to make - being forced to study when there was so much
uncertainty was cruel, unfair and pointless.
It is a victory for students, but an ideal victory is a rare thing in any context. Teachers have shown support to adopt the predicted results method for 2020, however, there will be difficulties. Some teachers may not recall how a student performed during the year or previous years. Some teachers may have been on leave for much of the year, with a substitute taking their place. Some teachers may have "favourites" (though this, in fairness, would be a tiny minority of unprofessionals), others may have "least-favourites". More likely that teachers will be inclined to pass as many of their students as possible - a rather benign outcome. Anyway, the whole process is sure to be bureaucratised between now and then to limit such possibilities.
The real losers are the students who, in all sincerity were talented enough to do just enough at the last moment to get by satisfactorily. Their results are uncertain. Their anxiety may be heightened. But this too only emphasises the absurdity of the whole system. It has to go.
Am I contradicting myself then? Is this not a bourgeois victory which has actually increased the inequality of the exam process? For 2020, the cancellation has merely assuaged the fears of students and their families brought about by covid-19. However, it is in future years that, should the dogma of the JC and LC continue to be challenged, class privilege derived through education will be threatened. The cancellation of the 2020 LC has been a significant step in that direction.
Finally (and there's a level of hypocrisy highlighted here), even if the LC went ahead, the results themselves would be an anomaly. The 2020 results would be seriously undermined for those who place such prestige on the exams. The point would be lost. The exam redundant. As it is, the results for 2020 are undermined anyway. The whole process is exposed. So why have the children suffer? Let them away.
