Not everyone is happy with the new Leaving Cert timetables

The new more user- friendly Leaving Cert timetable is good news for most students, but not everyone will benefit, writes Louise Holden.

THE MAJORITY of students were pleased when the then minister for education and science, Mary Hanafin, announced in November that the Leaving Certificate timetable was to be changed to facilitate them.

A minority, chiefly students of home economics and chemistry, are not so chuffed.

For them, the dreaded first week of the Leaving went from being universally unfair to partially so. Now students of home economics, chemistry and geography argue that they are at a significant disadvantage as their exams are frontloaded in the first week. Other students, they counter, get half-days and extra study time for their chosen subjects.

"Our pre-exams followed the new timetable and we just hit the floor after the second day," says Aisling Twomey, a student in Christ King secondary school in Cork, who will sit English paper 2 and chemistry together this week.

"Chemistry is such a long course and it used to fall later in the timetable. That gave students a chance to look over the material again when all the main subjects were finished. Now we don't get that chance, while students taking other elective subjects do. It puts us at a disadvantage."

The new timetable was constructed following a consultation process between Ms Hanafin and 100 Leaving Cert students following their exams last July.

According to Ms Hanafin, the decision to split up English papers 1 and 2 was prompted by a call to take some of the pressure out of the first week and give students half-days in order to regroup for the next paper.

The afternoon paper on the first day, English 2, is to be replaced by home economics, which used to take place in the second week. English 2 has moved to day two, followed by chemistry, which used to be timetabled over a week later.

According to Aisling Twomey, one of the most stressful aspects of the new timetable is "mind-switching" between unrelated topics such as chemistry and English, or Irish and business, with less than a couple of hours in between.

"Chemistry is a precision subject. You can lose marks for small errors and omissions. You can't be tired, you have to be in the right frame of mind. English and chemistry require totally different language forms."

A number of students in Christ King school have the unfortunate combination of business, history and biology. Those students, says Aisling Twomey, are dreading the second week because they will have five exams in two days.

"The new schedule hasn't done a whole lot of good for my friends, if anything it has added to our workload," she complains.

"With the old timetable we were all in the same boat; the first three days were core subjects and everyone was under the same pressure. Then there was some space between the electives for us all to catch our breath. Now some students, like us, are just bombarded."

Twomey and her friends are not alone. Last year, 7,128 students took chemistry. Home economics was chosen by 12,523 students and 24,763 elected to study geography.

In the High School in Rathgar, Dublin, career guidance counsellor Thelma Jones is concerned about what the changes might mean for subject choice.

Jones also has reservations about the motivation behind the reshuffle.

"While I believe that there was a genuine attempt to make life easier for some of the students, I also believe that economic factors played a large part in this," says Jones, who puts 135 sixth-year students through the guidance process each year.

"By cramming so many subjects into the first week of the exams, the department can continue to close exam centres early, thus saving money.

"If the department really wanted the students to have some half-days in the first week," she continues, "then they should have lengthened the timetable and put all the elective subjects in the second and third weeks. Or, failing that, why not choose electives that have far fewer participants for the first week, such as classical studies or technical drawing?"

A number of teachers have raised the issue of equality in the new scheduling. Home economics is predominantly studied by girls (by a ratio of 11 to one) and chemistry also attracts more female than male students.

"It's tough on the day to switch from English to chemistry," says Jones. "You need to be 'on' for English, which is why the current arrangement, while tough, is better."

Eleanor Sherman, an English teacher, agrees that some students may feel that "their minds are all over the place".

However, she says that the new changes work well for her because, as a teacher of English, her subject is a principal beneficiary of the new schedule.

"In my view, it's worth trying it out. Double English is a daunting task and anything that will alleviate that should be considered. However, it's not the absolute answer. If it doesn't work, it should be looked at again."

The Institute of Guidance Counsellors is also hoping that the new arrangement will be reconsidered. Micheál Gleeson, of the institute, thinks that 100 students was a small consultation base from which to draw such far-reaching conclusions.

While happy that there has been some improvement, Gleeson contends that others should have been consulted - such as career guidance counsellors.

"It's impossible to get full agreement on something like this, but a more general agreement should be sought. Other partners - teachers, counsellors, parents - should be consulted.

"Minor changes in these exams make a big difference. Stress is a very serious issue for students and we need to try to reduce it for everyone.

"For a proportion of students," Gleeson adds, "there is a lot in the first week. Ideally, every student should have just one exam per day. Is the department prepared to spend the extra money necessary to allow this? It seems not.

"There is a certain amount of window-dressing involved in this new timetable. It is a cost-saving exercise: it's not in the real interests of students."