A little examination will make a good system even better

State examinations: The problems with the State exams this year underline the case for change, argues John MacGabhann.

Now that the exam "season" has closed, it is useful to reflect on the conduct of the examinations and to consider what improvements could be made.

It is important to acknowledge from the outset that the organisation of the State examinations is a vast undertaking that is conducted with quite remarkable efficiency and, for the most part, with evident concern for the welfare of students. The logistical wizards in the newly established State Examinations Commission deserve our admiration, as do all those who facilitate the smooth conduct of the exams and the marking of papers.

The most compelling evidence of routine competence is the hen's-tooth rarity of blunders, for, make no mistake about it, this annual operation is the open-heart surgery of the education system. The stakes are high, the level of public scrutiny intense and the repercussions, in terms of public opprobrium, instantaneous if a mistake is made.

The desire to best serve the candidate is evident in many aspects of the examinations. Special arrangements are put in place for those who need them, the design of papers has improved significantly, attempts are being made to ensure consistency in the standard of marking across subjects, review of papers by candidates has been introduced, results are made available in electronic format and additional assessment components have been introduced in some subjects to achieve greater congruence between the aims and objectives of the syllabi and the manner in which they are assessed.

Is it not mere perversity then to find fault and ask for more from the system? No, when the welfare of students and the enhancement of their life prospects are at issue it is not. We should settle for no less than the best that is achievable and have a duty to point to weaknesses where they exist and can be remedied.

This year, for instance, students sitting Gaeilge at Leaving Certificate Higher Level were presented with composition options that were absurdly at odds with all reasonable expectations. The titles shackled composition rather than enabling it and were devoid of any semblance of understanding of the experiences, interests and aspirations of the candidates. The attitudinal sub-text seemed to be that if the exam doesn't hurt, it can't be any good. This attitude does not arise from the syllabus; it is not necessary. It is the product of flawed judgement or, worse still, of arrogance. It can be remedied.

This year's paper did injury to students who are entitled to an opportunity to display their proficiency rather than being cornered by some arcane cultural imperative.

Papers should also be adequately proofed. Leaving Certificate mathematics Paper 2 failed in this respect. Nervous candidates, of whom there are many, should at least have the assurance that precious time won't be wasted and confidence eroded in a vain effort to solve what cannot be solved.

It is wrong - and avoidable - that any part of a paper should contain questions on material that isn't on the syllabus. Yet it happened this year in chemistry. Terminology that is beyond the scope of the syllabus studied should be eschewed. Biology students encountered such terminology this year.

The improved design of papers in some subjects should be matched in others. The striking contrast between the quality of presentation in Junior Certificate Higher Level English and Foundation Level Gaeilge is proof that improvements, so far, are sporadic. This is a matter not only of respect for all students but also of equity.

Listening comprehension tapes are sometimes of very indifferent quality. Is it not time for CD versions?

Is it right that the break between morning and afternoon exams during those harrowingly intensive first days should be so short? Why persist with the illogicality of adding 20 minutes to exams that, at three hours, are already long enough.

For that matter, why concentrate the exams into the early days? It may save money, but it adds an extraneous demand on students - endurance - to the legitimate academic demands. It exacerbates the distress of candidates who are feeling unwell. Is it the function of an afternoon maths exam to test the pain threshold of a student with a stomach upset? The consequence for some students is that they have to repeat the exams, which involves repeating the full year. A harsh price to pay for illness! Remedies are required in the short term.

What then of the longer term? In spite of the strengths of the current dispensation, a better match is needed between syllabus aims and forms of assessment. However, any changes in assessment processes must be designed to improve the situation for candidates and not simply replace one period of intense pressure with several periods of scarcely diminished pressure.

It is also the case that change costs money - politicians please note. The TUI, for example, is prepared to accommodate appropriate changes if certain conditions are satisfied in terms of training, time, payment and external moderation.

State certificate examinations serve a critical function for both the individual student and society at large. They demand our careful attention.

John MacGabhann is Education/Research Officer for the Teachers' Union of Ireland.