It has been already an incredible ordeal. Stress, anxiety, disruption to education and pressure. Doing the Leaving Cert is hard any year, that has been magnified by the pandemic, and the uncertainty which has existed.

It is also true of the Leaving Cert Class of 2020, that the digital divide, and the disadvantage divide, has become a chasm. Educational disadvantage in Ireland starts at a very young age.

But add to that in recent weeks, students who have poor internet, limited or no access to devices, or who have no space to work, or where the environment for work is just not good at home.

For those students the loss of school has been disastrous.

It is in such a context, and where it was clear that it was not in the interests of the health and welfare of students or teachers, that the exam was cancelled. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the approach taken by the Minister to resolve this, is the correct one.

Predicted or calculated grades are far from reliable. Even where predictive grades form part of university applications and where they have long been built into the system and there is more evidence in terms of standardised classwork and recent State exam, they are imperfect. However, here we have none of those things.

Many students who had no expectation that their pre-exams, mock exams or Christmas tests could potentially carry the weight they now do. There are plenty of students who know they can turn the gas on late in the year.

There are also many students doing the leaving certificate subject outside traditional school settings, including native speakers of minority languages who may not have had any formal tuition at all.

The controversy regarding legal protections underlines the vulnerabilities in the proposal and how much is at stake in all this. What teachers are expected to do under this scheme is highly pressurised and unprecedented. It is important that they are assured of good protection.

From my conversations with teachers, even those with major concerns, they are keen to deliver for their students, and ensure they can progress to the next stage of their academic or work life.

I know teachers will do what they can to make this work and they are right. It would be far worse for this cohort not to proceed.

However, imperfect as calculated grades are, by far the worst aspect is the ‘school profiling’ proposal.

The government's proposal starts with teachers calculating the grades, and these are aligned within the schools by all teachers of that subject, before being overseen and signed off by the Principal.

However, the government's document tell us that “the teachers’ estimated marks from each school will be adjusted to bring them into line with the expected distribution for the school.” This is a starting position, not just an indicator – ‘will be adjusted’.

These are based on tables and rankings that the department holds, and does not publish, because it knows it is not a fair reflection of the reality of education.

It would be one thing if all else among schools was equal, apart from results, but schools in fact magnify the disadvantage felt by communities. Students who deserve the chance to do a life-changing course will miss out and students who should not fail a subject, or indeed their leaving certificate, will fail as a result of school profiling policy and that is totally wrong.

It is a fact that a school could have the results of their students marked diligently and conscientiously by their teachers, revised downwards simply because of results of the previous cohort. A strong cohort, which bucks the trend of the school, will not get the grades they deserve.

In Britain, research based on GCSE performance between 2011 and 2015 found that more than one in five schools had expected to have large changes in their percentage of As to C English literature GCSE results between 2014 and 2015 and that this was “only partially attributable to teaching quality”.

Every cohort is different and deserve to be treated on their own merits.

If the minister is confident in the calculated grades approach, then he should trust the system of alignment, and appeals, along with a randomised checking process, to ensure a standard.

In my view, the better approach to resolve the Leaving Cert impasse, would have focused on opening additional 3rd level places. Many of the 14,000 students who come here annually from abroad are not coming here now, leaving many places vacant. Universities alone are facing a shortfall of €374m.

It seems clear that government will have to step in to assist the university sector, however, the investment that is needed can also focus on delivering additional places for students completing the Leaving Cert by investing in SUSI and access programmes such HEAR and DARE.

Students could be allocated their first choice where the course is not oversubscribed, and assessments could be put in place for oversubscribed courses. This could be accompanied by a separate Leaving Cycle certification for those not attending third level, which could take several metrics into account.

Such an approach would have tackled the disadvantages that have been exacerbated in recent weeks and would open up access to higher and further education, not further close it down.

Elements of this proposal can still be implemented to ameliorate the flaws in the minister's approach. If the minister works constructively to open up third level, we can work towards the objective of most students getting their first choice courses in higher education.

According to the HEA, 19% of university enrolments come from the 16 percent most affluent families, compared with 10% from the 16% most disadvantaged families. We need to change that dramatically - access to third level education, has the ability to transform lives, and unlock enormous potential.

School profiling risks copper fastening the disadvantages many students face. It needs to be gotten rid of.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire is Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Justice & Equality