Staggered starts, temperature checks, face masks: the Leaving Cert that never was

A “military precision” queuing system for Leaving Certificate candidates, a two-metre rule between students, and the staggering of papers between July 29th and September 5th were among the measures planned for the now abandoned State exams.

“Delivering the 2020 Leaving Certificate Examinations”, a document prepared for a Department of Education advisory group on May 1st, shows just how daunting the scale of organising the exams was going to be against the backdrop of a pandemic.

It raised the possibility of temperature checks and face masks prior to entry to exam halls, and proposed that exams would be capped at 90 minutes, about half the normal duration.

The document also raises searching questions around just how schools will manage to reopen in September while keeping staff and pupils safe.

Would Leaving Cert students' estimates of their own grades help teachers?

---

Minister for Education, Labour spokesman come to verbal blows over ‘school profiling’

---

Leaving Cert students banned from contacting teachers as school ends

---

The State Examinations Commission (SEC) was charged with developing a model that would allow the Leaving Cert proceed in schools "as close to normal as possible".

However. the document shows that what was being planned would have been nothing like any exams held in the 95-year history of the Leaving Cert.

Even in a normal year, the State exams are a mammoth undertaking. They involve more than 60,000 students across 800 schools and other settings with thousands of exam superintendents, attendants, principals, deputies and other school staff.

The document says “attrition” was likely in the number of superintendents “due to age profile” and some would be “likely to be unwilling to travel” outside their area to exam halls given the public health conditions.

Simply getting to the exams was flagged as a key issue. The document states that students might not be able to use school transport to get to the exams and that public transport may be limited.

Transport

These students would need alternative transport over a potentially protracted exam period, impacting particularly on rural students, disadvantaged students, those lacking parental support.

Physically accommodating students was also set to be a challenge, with the growth in recent years of so-called special centres for students with additional needs.

As exams are already a huge source of pressure, the document states there would be increase demand for these centres in the midst of the pandemic , “possibly to unsustainable levels”.

The document proposed “two rules of thumb” for accommodating students in exams halls.

One was that no more than 10 students would be permitted in a classroom and 40 in a gym. Another was “one student, one desk”, with candidates obliged to use the same desk for the duration of the exams.

No attendance would be permitted by any students or staff who was ill, quarantining or living with a family member who was self-isolating.

Its public health advice was that the virus could remain viable for hours to days on surfaces made from a variety of materials, requiring regular routine sanitising and cleaning.

Duty of care

The SEC would have duty of care to superintendents to provide hand sanitiser, antiseptic wipes/sprays; masks, gloves; school authorities to put in place; while school authorities would be required provide similar access for students.

The document also poses a series of questions, such as: What happens if a student or superintendent falls ill after the examination has started? Can the session continue? What about remainder of the exams in that centre?

What arrangements will be possible for students unable to able to attend due to bereavement or illness ?

The document concludes by saying “as close to normal as possible is nothing close to normal”.

It says following the plan would require a “complete re-engineering and reconfiguration of tried and tested methods for the secure distribution of exam papers to schools and students”. This, it says, would have minimised health risks but greatly increased security and integrity risks.