Dr Niamh O’Meara: Abolish or reform it
The bonus points initiative (BPI) was introduced in 2012 to incentivise the study of higher-level mathematics and with the long-term goal of improving students’ mathematical capabilities. Since its introduction, there has been a 130 per cent increase in the proportion of students studying higher-level maths for the Leaving Certificate. Despite the BPI being introduced at the same time as a revised curriculum (Project Maths), research has shown that this surge is solely as a result of the 25 extra points on offer for achieving 40 per cent or more in the higher-level paper. It may seem strange, then, that I – an academic who has been researching ways to improve the teaching and learning of mathematics for the last 18 years – would be advocating for the reform or abolition of an initiative that appears, on the face of it, to be such a success. However, the unintended consequences, coupled with the BPI’s failure to achieve its second goal of improving students’ mathematical capabilities, give cause for concern.
Three research studies I conducted with colleagues, Dr Mark Prendergast at University College Cork and Dr Páraic Treacy at Mary Immaculate College, Thurles, have shown that the BPI has led to a significant change in the profile of higher-level mathematics classes. Teachers report there is now a much greater range of ability at higher level, this has led to them reducing the pace of their lessons; avoiding some content due to students’ lack of readiness; and revisiting topics that previously they would have expected students to be competent in. This is having a knock-on effect on high-achieving students in the classroom. In addition, teachers report that students’ motivations for studying higher-level maths have changed significantly as a result of the BPI – something that was confirmed in a study we conducted with senior-cycle students. Students and teachers report that the BPI is the sole reason many students are undertaking higher-level mathematics, and as a result many less ambitious, as well as less able, students are taking the subject at higher level. These struggling students find themselves under immense pressure leading to increased levels of stress and anxiety, at a time when wellbeing is at the heart of our education system.
Finally and unsurprisingly given the above, there is strong evidence to suggest that the BPI has not had the desired effect on students’ mathematical competencies. Despite the increase in the proportion of students taking higher-level mathematics, the majority of teachers we surveyed were unequivocal in their assertion that the BPI has not raised the mathematical standards of students.
Given these concerns, what is the future of the BPI? I believe it is critical we listen to teachers in this regard. They are at the coalface and are the ones tasked with teaching in a very different environment as a result of the BPI. The majority have reported that they would like to see the BPI reformed or abolished.
‘I am at a loss as to how €5,200 goes missing’: PTSB customers say refunds disappeared without a trace
A Finn on Inis Mór: ‘In Finland you just ignore everyone you don’t know. Even people you know sometimes’
Is it true that women need more sleep each night than men?
Q&A: Do I need planning permission for my home energy upgrades?
The flat 25 bonus points on offer, whether a student receives a H1 (90 per cent -100 per cent) or a H6 (40 per cent-49 per cent), is the crux of the issue. One possible reform, then, would be to offer bonus points on a scaled basis, so that the higher the grade achieved, the more bonus points a student secures.
Other adjustments suggested by teachers include awarding bonus points only for higher grades, or only awarding bonus points for higher education courses that require higher-level mathematics. These adjustments would still ensure students are rewarded for the time and effort associated with higher-level maths while reducing the number of borderline students who don’t intend to study maths at university, but are willing to take the risk of narrowly passing the examination. If none of these modifications are possible, then as a society we need to ask if the special status attributed to mathematics through the BPI in its current format is serving our students and teachers well.
Dr Niamh O’Meara is associate professor in mathematics education in the School of Education, University of Limerick.
Darragh Burke: Keep it
Since the BPI was introduced, the proportion of students taking maths at higher level has increased dramatically. Between 2011, the year before the increase in points, and 2024, there has been a 130 per cent (from 15.8 per cent to 36.3 per cent) increase in the proportion of students taking the higher level paper. The evidence is clear that the BPI has achieved its goal in increasing the number of students opting to sit higher-level maths.
As a sixth year Leaving Cert student who is studying higher-level maths, I view the BPI as a progressive scheme that benefits more individuals than it disadvantages. About 80 per cent of my year group are studying maths at higher level. Without the BPI there’s no doubt that number would be much lower. And the BPI encourages students to persist in their studies of the higher level maths syllabus – it offers extrinsic motivation to complement their intrinsic motivation. The BPI also helps to motivate younger students. Even in junior cycle I was aware of the benefits of the BPI and knew that it meant more students wanting to do higher maths as a result.
The BPI works and it pays off. In 2024, 12.6 per cent of students achieved a H1 in LC HL maths, an increase from 11.2 per cent the previous year. Just under 1 per cent (0.8 per cent) of students failed the same exam. The Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) results show that the average score of 15-year-olds in Ireland on the mathematical literacy scale in 2022 was 491.6, the third highest in the EU27 and above the OECD average score of 472.4. The Pisa results also show that in 2021, Ireland had the highest rate of Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) graduates, at 40.3 per 1,000 people aged 20-29, compared with an EU27 average of 21.9.
[ Pupils in Ireland among top maths performers in Europe, global study findsOpens in new window ]
Engineers Ireland, the national representative body for the engineering profession, has welcomed an increase in the proportion of students choosing to sit Leaving Cert higher-level maths last year, but warned that more must be done to increase interest in other subjects related to engineering. Perhaps the real question is not whether the bonus for higher-level maths should be scrapped but whether a BPI should be introduced for other challenging subjects?
The CAO system is brutal. Competition is fierce and every point matters. Considering the large proportion of time dedicated by students to their studies of higher-level maths, I believe the BPI is a fair reflection of the amount of time put in by students. The downside is, however, that as the BPI leads to further involvement and absorption into the maths syllabus, it can put a lot of pressure on some students, leading them to sacrifice time on their other subjects in order to meet the 40 per cent pass threshold.
Another reasonable criticism of the initiative has been that the increase in the number of students taking higher-level maths has led to teachers spending much more of their time with the weaker students who were struggling to attain the 40 per cent mark – which in turn has resulted in less time being spent on the higher performing students. But it seems to me that improved funding and resources provided for the teaching and learning of maths would offer a solution to this.
Back in 2012, the BPI was launched on a four-year pilot basis. Thirteen years later it is still with us. It is not flawless, but it works and should be kept.
Darragh Burke is a sixth year student in Ardscoil Rís, Dublin. He is chairperson of the school’s student council
