What would Donogh O’Malley make of it? Sixty years after he introduced free second-level education in Ireland, hundreds of Irish teenagers are paying €11,000 a year for the pleasure of sitting the Leaving Cert.
Yes, it’s boom time for grind schools. The Dublin Academy of Education recently announced an expansion of its operations under a €7 million investment. Its main competitor the Institute of Education is oversubscribed.
It is often said that the Leaving Cert is the fairest possible form of assessment at secondary level. But the growth of the grinds industry should give us pause for thought. How fair are the State exams if some students can buy an advantage in the form of specialised tuition?
Fairness has always been a slippery concept. Aristotle came up with a famous formulation more than 2,000 years ago that “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally”. It is right for a parent to show favouritism (“unequal” concern) towards their own child, wanting what’s best for them. However, the Minister for Education, representing all students, should have (equal) concern for their interests. That’s fair, according to Aristotle.
Grind schools create an injustice at the heart of Ireland’s education system
Three things we give up when we turn away from Catholicism
The Enlightenment gave rise to a habit of worshipping ‘great men’, but they never had to worry about dying in childbirth
A fox knows many things, but a hedgehog knows one big thing. Be more like a hedgehog
There are two types of unfairness Helen McEntee should be worried about. First, the obvious one: only some families can afford grinds. Second, a more insidious one: the growth of the grinds industry affects all students at secondary level.
It puts pressure on school principals to compete against grind schools in the points race at the expense of a more holistic education. It undermines classroom teachers who believe there’s more to learning than doing a test.
I saw the effects myself at my school when the institute was a smaller but still impactful operation. Some parents took issue with the physics teacher in my year, believing he was too focused on experiments. They saw little value in practical work that was unrelated to the test.
Eventually, half the class was sent to study physics at the institute at weekends – which had a big impact on the rest of us who had to try to learn the subject with a group of peers who were resentful at having had their Saturdays ruined. Inevitably, they spent most of class in a disruptive mood, losing no opportunity to disrespect our teacher. Funnily enough, I don’t think their exam results were any better.
Rethinking our attitude towards luck may help us to see the real injustices in our education system. It may also help us to understand the real meaning of equality of opportunity
This is a relatively trivial example, but it’s indicative of how the growth of grinds industry – and the allied points race – affects all students in secondary education, whether they wish to be in the race or not. Schools across Ireland are under intense pressure to adopt a grind school mentality. For a variety of reasons, that’s not in the best interests of all students.
A related question of fairness that hangs over the education system is how to allocate college places to school-leavers. Universities were forced to use lotteries on 20 different courses last year, which caused understandable upset among those affected.
From a policy perspective, however, there is a case for considering the wider use of random selection. Harvard political scientist Michael Sandel is a prominent advocate, suggesting that once candidates have reached a certain points threshold the rest should be left to chance.
Part of his rationale is that this would reduce exam pressure. It removes the incentive to spend hours trying to achieve micro-improvements in grades (by, for example, paying for grinds). Sandel also argues lotteries can be a fairer way of distributing limited resources than competition.
Missing out on a lottery for your preferred course can be considered bad luck. But there are countless different paths to the same career goal. Strangely, Irish people don’t get as worked up over other kinds of misfortune.
A couple of weeks ago my teenage son approached me in shock after watching an item on the news. He had seen a story about dozens of parents sleeping out in front of the Department of Education because their children – who had special educational needs – were being denied appropriate school places.
“Is that not against the Constitution?” my son asked incredulously.
Bless his innocence. He has learned a bit about human rights in his citizenship class. But this is Ireland, where families who have been dealt a tough hand have to go to the authorities begging for help.
The kind of misfortune experienced by a family of a child with special needs is to be pitied, according to the values of our society. And any parent who manages to secure a professional assessment, language therapy, or any other assistance after tortuous delays, is expected to show gratitude.
Because their disadvantage has been ordained by nature – whereas the bad luck of someone who misses out on their preferred course through random selection is man-made, and therefore an outrage. It breaks the sacred pact of our meritocracy. It goes against the capitalist credo that you get what you deserve in life.
Rethinking our attitude towards luck may help us to see the real injustices in our education system. It may also help us to understand the real meaning of equality of opportunity.
Whether lotteries can play a constructive role in the points race is an open question. They would be controversial. They would probably be unpopular. They would also ruin the business model of the Leaving Cert grinds industry.
