Article: Leaving Cert higher-level exam times to be cut

PurpleFistMixer

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0826/1219679949834.html
In today's Irish Times...

THE TIME given to Leaving Cert higher-level exams in Irish, English and a range of other subjects is expected to be cut by 20 minutes.

A report commissioned by the State Exams Commission - due to be published shortly - says the time for higher-level exams in Irish, English, history and geography should be shortened. This, it said, would make the Leaving Cert fairer for all candidates.

At present, the higher-level exams in Irish, English, history and geography are the longest on the exam timetable. Paper two in English clocks in at three hours and 20 minutes while the two Irish papers extend over five hours and 10 minutes.

Students are allowed just under three hours for history and geography.
But the advisory group established by the exams commission says these very lengthy exams should be cut back.

The recommendation will make no difference to students who have already entered the Leaving Cert cycle - those now in fifth and sixth year.

The higher-level exams in question were extended as part of a pilot project in the year 2000.

The plan was that the extra time would make the exams fairer for weaker students by allowing extra time.

But the ASTI has argued that the extra time has actually given an advantage to stronger students. It strongly recommended that the provision be discontinued.

The advisory group - chaired by Prof Áine Hyland, former UCC vice-president - said extra time should be available for weaker students who need it. But it said the decision to allow extra time for all students should be reversed.

Through the scheme known as "reasonable accommodations", the exams commission provides a range of measures to enable students with disabilities to access the certificate examinations.

The Advisory Group on Reasonable Accommodations was established last year to "re-examine policy and practice in the area of reasonable accommodations provided for students in the certificate examinations".
This follows controversy about the huge increase in the number of students in receipt of certain special provisions in exam situations.

This year, almost 11,000 students did not sit Leaving Cert Irish and many of these had gained exemptions in the subject.

Although most of these are genuine, the Department of Education's inspectorate has hinted that the system is also open to abuse.

Since 2001, the number of students receiving a waiver for spelling and grammar has increased by almost 700 per cent. The numbers receiving reading assistance have also increased dramatically.

Much of this rise is due to an increased awareness of specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia and increased provisions and supports in schools for diagnosing and managing such conditions.

Reasonable accommodations include measures that are intended to diminish, as far as possible, the impact of a physical or learning difficulty on a candidate's ability to demonstrate his or her level of attainment. They are not designed to give any advantage to students sitting the exams.

These include the provision of readers and scribes; the production of modified papers; Brailled and enlarged papers; the use of tape recorders and computers; and exemption or waivers in respect of particular components.

© 2008 The Irish Times

It says it won't make a difference to students already in 5th/6th year, but doesn't specify how exactly. Presumably it won't come into effect for a number of years.

I'm glad I got out while I can... English 2 was already a scramble. Though I had seas of time for Irish 1, and Irish 2 wasn't too bad either...

I cannot see how this is going to go down well with history people though. I didn't do it, but they were constantly commenting on how ridiculously strapped for time you are in that exam... it seems quite cruel to set an exam that you cannot finish in the time allocated.

K4t

This is how I'm understanding it,

The length of certain exams (including history) were increased by 20 minutes in order to give 'weaker' students a fairer chance and to give 'better' students more time to complete the exam.

But now, they have come to the conclusion that the extra 20 minutes doesn't benefit the 'weaker' students, so they propose to change it back i.e. decrease the time length. This will supposedly benefit the 'weaker' students but will definitely make the exams much more difficult for 'better' students.

Imho, the exams should be long enough to let the students write down and express as much as they know about each subject.

What is the point in placing incredibly strict time frames on exams where students often leave out information they know because they are stuck for time? It's ridiculous.

And then just when they change it and give students that extra 20 minutes to make it easier, what do they want to do, change it back!!!! because it doesn't benenfit weaker students.

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Jello

Pretty stupid really, glad it won't affect me.

Geography I suppose could be shortened a bit without causing much harm, but everything else should be left well alone.

Aisling(",)

thats kill me if it affected me.
i cant write quickly without it becoming illegible so id have been screwed!

Piste

I'd be so annoyed if that affected me, I have never not been badly strapped for time in an English exam.

KnifeWRENCH

I hope that the format of the exam will be changed aswell? Because I was writing to the last second for both English II and Geography.
There's no way I could have completed those exams if the time had been cut.

I'm glad I'm not in 3rd or 4th year - I would be royally pissed off :mad:

K4t

Piste wrote: »

I'd be so annoyed if that affected me, I have never not been badly strapped for time in an English exam.

English has been fine for me for the last five years. It's history that kills me! My hand is never not bursting with pain after a history test, and then she says we have less time in the actual LC exam :eek:

This is truly ridiculous. They are essentially punishing brighter students. :mad:

Jay P

Sweet! Just in 6th year! Hopefully They won't be mean horrible people and decide to kill me for time in English and geography...

The Walsho

That can't be right. History, Geography and English (ironically my A subjects) were far too tight for time in my opinion.

Irish I can understand though, there's an awful lot of time there.

Why do they feel the need to make the thing a race against time? It makes no sense to me. Give people the chance to get down everything they know, it's not like a weaker student who didn't put in the work will benefit from more time in the exam. It seems to me they're not actually thinking about the students here, and merely about squeezing a few more pennies.

I mean, what the fúck is this? : "But the ASTI has argued that the extra time has actually given an advantage to stronger students. It strongly recommended that the provision be discontinued.

The advisory group - chaired by Prof Áine Hyland, former UCC vice-president - said extra time should be available for weaker students who need it. But it said the decision to allow extra time for all students should be reversed."

How is more time going to be an advantage that will only favour certain students? Seems like nonsensical bollocks to me.
The reality is, if you put in the work during the year you'll know your stuff, and you should be given time enough to get the information down in the exam. If you didn't do the work, no amount of extra time in the exam hall will make up for that.

jennyq

I don't honestly see how reducing the time could help weaker students in any way. Better students aren't better because of 20 minutes, they're going to do better anyway, so why not give everybody the time to do as well as they possibly can. Punishing better students is hardly a fair way of doing things. I didn't even finish my English Paper II with the time given now and I actually can't see how it would be possible to finish it with 20 minutes less, unless they change the paper in some way. I know it's quality, not quantity but for most people it ends up being nearly 20 pages or more of writing to do.

phasers

SHORTEN History? are they mad?

muffinman

K4t wrote: »

Imho, the exams should be long enough to let the students write down and express as much as they know about each subject.

+1

Jello wrote: »

Geography I suppose could be shortened a bit without causing much harm, but everything else should be left well alone.

Nah with the new geography syllabus most people struggle to finish within the time limit.. It's a very tight exam time-wise

The Walsho wrote: »

Irish I can understand though, there's an awful lot of time there.

Yeah Irish can definitely be cut back.. I was the last person to leave my exam centre for P2 (most were doing pass) and that was a half hour early

The Walsho wrote: »

I mean, what the fúck is this? : "But the ASTI has argued that the extra time has actually given an advantage to stronger students. It strongly recommended that the provision be discontinued.

Since when do the ASTI say silly things like this??? I thought that every English teacher in the country would be in favour of even more time for P2.. It's a non-stop write-a-thon as it is, and to reverse the scheme would be a huge disadvantage to all concerned in the case of English certainly..

Davidius

phasers wrote: »

SHORTEN History? are they mad?

Yes.

The Weasel

Seems to be one of the departments more ridiculous ideas alright... I personally refused point blank to hand up at least four of my papers on time because I hadnt wraped them up.. I cant remember ever having had the time to read over an english exam script.
Cant see how docking 20 minutes from an exam is goig to benefit anyone in any signifigant way- and I include correctors in that too- (my writing is damn near illedgeable twords the end of an exam as it is). An exam minus 20mins is only going to rush he better students, and stress out the weaker students. Stooopid!
Glad I wont be affected.

hatrickpatrick

This is utterly ridiculous. History either needs an EXTRA twenty minutes on top of the 2:50, or else shorter essays. It's flat out impossible to write a coherent, well thought out 4 page essay in 40 minutes when you've never seen the question before :mad:

philologos

Irish is way too long at the minute and should be shortened. I finished both my papers in roughly the same time allocated to Ordinary Level when I was doing Higher.

PurpleFistMixer

Jakkass wrote: »

Irish is way too long at the minute and should be shortened. I finished both my papers in roughly the same time allocated to Ordinary Level when I was doing Higher.

Agree with this... I actually had loads of time in paper 1... Ended up leaving early and sitting outside eating icecream before the aural. Can't remember paper 2, though there is a fair amount to do on that paper.

jennyq

Yeah, Irish paper 1 is really long, it seems like they're allowing time for people to write a really long essay like you might in English when most people are never going to do that (unless you're a native speaker I guess). French (& the other European languages I assume) is long enough for most people to leave early too I think.

for-why?

During the summer the Minister for Education invited about a hundred or so leaving cert students to the Dep. of Education in Dublin to talk about the new changes made to the LC timetable, along with people from the CAO and CEO etc. I think there was a random school chosen from each county and a few schools from Dublin and Cork, im presuming because of the bigger population. Anyway, I happened to be one of the students who attended from my school. At the meeting basically we put up our hand and spoke about what we considered a problem with the timetable and what could be done to improve it. Something he couldnt get over was the fact that nearly 100% of the students present (we voted by putting our hands up) thought it would be fairer to have certain exams extended by 20mins, History and English being the main two. Alot of students spoke up about the time allowed for History. It really is unrealistic to have to write three 800 hundred word essays and the document Q in 3hrs 20mins. That exam was torture! But he really was surprised and interested that we wanted to add time to the exams so Im really annoyed that he's taking 20mins from them. From what I gathered, they were considering the possibilty of adding a further 20mins to those exams. I know it doesnt affect me now, but it is penalising students by not giving the a fair amount of time to do their best.

spurious

Did the group at this meeting represent all the people who sit the Leaving Cert.? Were there people there who take Foundation Level papers? Would you say it was more weighted towards those taking Higher Level?

Inviting students to a meeting in the middle of the summer holidays doesn't sound like a way of getting a representative mix. I really hope that's not how decisions are come to.

MathsManiac

It might be helpful to point out the history of this whole business:

The exams concerned were originally designed to be answerable in a certain amount of time.

Certain students, because of particular (certified) learning difficulties, used to apply for and be granted additional time.

The number of students applying was growing out of control, and furthermore, it was believed that some categories of students/schools were more likely to apply and get these concessions, whereas students with similar difficulties elsewhere were not applying. (i.e. It worked for people who had the ability and desire to play the system, and the resources to get the requisite psychological assessment done.)

A decision was therefore taken to allow the additional time for everybody. The rationale was: since the exam is designed to be answerable in (say) 150 minutes, then people without reading/writing problems can finish in that time anyway, so allowing 170 minutes gives the people that do have these difficulties the necessary time to finish, and gives no benefit to people who are already finished after 150 minutes. This was done on a pilot basis with an intention to review, but of course was just rolled over each year.

What actually happened, of course, is that the kind of people who were previously getting it all done in 150 minutes starting writing more stuff and taking the whole 170 minutes, so the objective of helping out the others was undermined. Teachers and candidates starting thinking about this as a 170 minute exam, rather than a 150 minute exam with a 20 minute extension for anyone who had a problem like dyslexia.

In other words, people are now writing much more in these exams than was ever intended. (And the intended compensation for those with dyslexia was undermined.)

What is happening now, it would appear, is that somebody is finally facing the fact that it was a daft sort of solution in the first place, (since what subsequently happened was entirely predictable). It seems like there is a sensible proposal to go back to the intended time for the exam and deal with those who have learning difficulies in a proper and targetted way.

If some of those exams really are too long for the time available anyway, that's a separate issue and should be dealt with as such.

for-why?

for-why? wrote: »

During the summer the Minister for Education invited about a hundred or so leaving cert students to the Dep. of Education in Dublin to talk about the new changes made to the LC timetable, along with people from the CAO and CEO etc. I think there was a random school chosen from each county and a few schools from Dublin and Cork, im presuming because of the bigger population. Anyway, I happened to be one of the students who attended from my school. At the meeting basically we put up our hand and spoke about what we considered a problem with the timetable and what could be done to improve it. Something he couldnt get over was the fact that nearly 100% of the students present (we voted by putting our hands up) thought it would be fairer to have certain exams extended by 20mins, History and English being the main two. Alot of students spoke up about the time allowed for History. It really is unrealistic to have to write three 800 hundred word essays and the document Q in 3hrs 20mins. That exam was torture! But he really was surprised and interested that we wanted to add time to the exams so Im really annoyed that he's taking 20mins from them. From what I gathered, they were considering the possibilty of adding a further 20mins to those exams. I know it doesnt affect me now, but it is penalising students by not giving the a fair amount of time to do their best.

Jesus.When I did my LC.I had to write 5 essays each averaging about 8 A4 pages.When did they reduce the uestions to 4?Defo agree about more time for history!

turgon

I was at the meeting too. :eek::eek: Batt O Keefe gave us all this food and travel expenses (:eek:) and what was it for - shìt. :eek::eek::eek:Waste of money, he didnt even listen to us. Well he can get his ministerial medal and shove it right up there with his rectum chisel. Waste of money.:eek::eek::eek:

estebancambias

I'd have failed, but then again I failed anyway.

for-why?

spurious wrote: »

Did the group at this meeting represent all the people who sit the Leaving Cert.? Were there people there who take Foundation Level papers? Would you say it was more weighted towards those taking Higher Level?

Inviting students to a meeting in the middle of the summer holidays doesn't sound like a way of getting a representative mix. I really hope that's not how decisions are come to.

Ya there was a mix alright, but it was more generalised than being Higher or Ordinary because it wasnt just those exam times discussed, but more so the layout of the timetable. The timing was a bit of a tangent.

Before I went I seriously thought it was just a PR exercise, you know "Minister listens to the students and actually makes life easier for them" kinda thing to be put across the papers. They had RTE radio there, interviewing the odd student or two. But I was pleasently surprised, cos he actually seemed really interested in what we had to say and was enthusiastic about making some of the changes we suggested.

But did he actually make any of them as he said he would??
NO :mad:.

Purely a PR exercise after all.

philologos

turgon wrote: »

I was at the meeting too. :eek::eek: Batt O Keefe gave us all this food and travel expenses (:eek:) and what was it for - shìt. :eek::eek::eek:Waste of money, he didnt even listen to us. Well he can get his ministerial medal and shove it right up there with his rectum chisel. Waste of money.:eek::eek::eek:

Maybe he misheard you and thought 20 minutes less :pac: