Leaving Cert 2025 Reaction: History was a tricky paper
Here is reaction to 2025 Leaving Certificate History (Higher Level) by Stephen Tonge, History teacher at The Institute of Education - part of their Leaving Cert Analysis series.
Download the exam papers here:
Key points:
Questions with narrower focuses will require students to quickly edit and adjust their approach to topics.
The reappearance of topics from last year will have upset some.
For many, things are winding down but it has already been tough going - here are tips on nutrition, sleep and minding yourself.
Opening Section 1's documents-based question many students will be pleased with the topic of The Jarrow March. While Document B was perhaps a little longer that you'd like for such a pressurised environment, the first three questions were very approachable. At question four, the challenge increases. Being asked to "argue your case" on the failure of the march is an unusually narrow focus and while students could easily approach it, it would tax them to write a fully robust answer in order to get the marks.
In Section 2: Ireland, many will have been drawn to "Topic 3: The pursuit of sovereignty and the impact of partition". This section seems designed to upset a reliance on sample answers - which while that is a fair ambition, makes it much harder for students to revise and navigate the vast course. The first question on the rise of Sinn Fein and the decline of Home Rule offers a range of relevant years but in practice was narrowly focused on 1916 to the election of 1918. The question on de Valera's leadership needed the combination of Civil War and World War II, which prioritises a key personality in a way that differs from previous approaches which emphasised contexts. While some would be happy with the cultural identity question, the inclusion of "North and South" makes it trickier to fully address.
The most surprising element of the paper was likely "Topic 5: Politics and Society in Northern Ireland, 1949-93". The questions themselves were not particularly difficult but 3 of the 4 questions returned to topics from last year's exam. In a curriculum as vast as History, students and teachers often must prioritize some elements over others, and the reappearance of questions on Lord Brookeborough and the Coleraine University Controversy will be an unpleasant surprise. If students had thoroughly prepared this case study, they would be fine, but many would not have anticipated a second outing for such comparatively minor elements of the topic.
Those who planned to write on "Europe and the Wider World Topic 6: The United States and the world, 1945-1989", will be relieved by the Lyndon Johnson question which many consider to be a banker when preparing. Additionally, the question on Berlin and Cuba would allow students good range to show their understanding. However, what stands out here is that only one case study appears (Vietnam). Earlier "Ireland Topic 6: The Republic of Ireland 1949-1989" had three case studies, so there is an imbalance in question selection. Indeed, the US Economy comprises roughly one third of that part of the course and is only tangentially related to one of the questions, while the much more niche power of religion in American life got a question to itself.
For students who really knew the material and are confident in their ability to adapt, edit and combine under pressure, this was a nice exam. However, many will have found themselves adjusting to narrower confines in question choice and demanded material. Definitely more taxing than they may have expected given previous exams.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
Belfast Islamic Centre attacked during prayers
An attack on the Islamic Centre in Belfast while people were praying yesterday has been condemned by politicians. A local MLA said a device was thrown inside the building during evening prayer and forced it to be evacuated. Police said they attended a security alert on University Road in south Belfast last night. A number of cordons were put in place and members of the public were asked to avoid the area. A 34-year-old man was arrested and was taken into police custody. Alliance MLA for South Belfast Paula Bradshaw condemned the attack, which she said did "not reflect the diversity of south Belfast in 2025". "This attack was again designed to cause fear among people inside the centre, who were at prayer at the time. "Nevertheless, I am thankful for the intervention of a nearby passer-by and for the work of the police "Those were much more reflective of the true spirit of Belfast, where most people rejoice in diversity. "I would like to express my solidarity with all those who were evacuated and my thanks to all those who worked to ensure their safety." 'Acts like these spread fear and division' - Sinn Féin MLA Sinn Fein MLA Deirdre Hargey said that "no-one should ever feel unsafe in their place of worship". "Acts like these, fuelled by hate, spread fear and division, and target people who have come to our communities to build a life and call this place home. "It's vital that all political leaders speak out and stand united against this disgusting behaviour." Green Party Councillor Aine Groogan condemned the attack as a "cowardly and vicious act". "I am horrified to hear about the attack on the Islamic Centre during evening prayers," she said. "I want to pay tribute to the courageous passer-by who intervened and prevented what could have been a far more tragic outcome. "It is terrifying to consider what might have happened and I sincerely hope that all those present are recovering from this traumatic ordeal." She added: "This attack is yet another reminder of the very real danger faced by our Islamic community. The recent rise in racist hate and violence on our streets is a shameful stain on our society. "We must all take responsibility for actively challenging racism, misinformation and bigotry wherever it appears before someone is seriously hurt. "I urge those politicians who continue to hide behind the notion of so-called 'legitimate concerns' around migration to reflect on the consequences of their words. "Such narratives are as disingenuous as they are dangerous. They help foster a culture in which hate can thrive. Frankly, they should know better."
RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
Putin's counter-narratives and stalled talks
If you were to only listen to Russian President Vladimir Putin's account of the war in Ukraine (as many millions of Russians do), you might conclude that Russia somehow stumbled into the conflict unwittingly, almost as if it were forced to invade its neighbour. Russia's leader told reporters at this week's St Petersburg International Economic Forum that he had told former US President Joe Biden during one of their last phone conversations (clearly, just before Moscow began its full-scale invasion in February 2022), that "conflicts, especially hot conflicts, must be avoided, and that all issues should be resolved through peaceful means." It was a brazen-faced claim from the man who started the largest conventional war in Europe since World War II. Mr Putin, just like current US President Donald Trump, is running a narrative that the Biden administration was at fault for not trying to stop a war that, in truth, Russia was hell-bent on starting anyway. Since returning to the White House in January, Mr Trump has repeatedly said that the conflict is "Biden's war". Mr Trump has also repeatedly claimed that the war would not have started if he had been president. On this hypothetical point, Mr Putin, is now in agreement too. "Indeed, had Trump been the president, perhaps this conflict would not have happened. I fully acknowledge that possibility," said the Russian leader during the same press event on Thursday in St Petersburg. What Mr Putin really means is: the Biden administration opposed Russia's demands to subjugate Ukraine, whereas Mr Trump, had he been the US president in the months leading up to February 2022, would have been more likely to pressure Ukraine to give in to Russia's demands. For his part, Mr Trump blames another former US President, Barack Obama, also a Democrat, for not dealing with Russia a decade ago. At the G7 meeting in the Canadian Rockies earlier this week, he said the war in Ukraine would not have happened if Russia had still been a member of the club, or G8 as it was known. (Russia was kicked out of the G8 in 2014 after its illegal annexation of Crimea). Despite Mr Trump's claims about how he could have averted the war from starting had he been president, he has failed in his promise to end it quickly since returning to the White House in January. It was always an unrealistic pledge. To its credit, the US, aided by Turkey, managed to get both Ukraine and Russia to hold two sets of brief, but direct talks in Istanbul in May, albeit at a low diplomatic level. Getting Ukraine to the table was never an issue. As early as the second week of March, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had said his country was ready to sign up to a US proposal to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire. The barrier to any ceasefire deal has been Russia, which has repeatedly rejected the US and European-backed ceasefire proposal. Those two sets of direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations last month in Istanbul have delivered large-scale prisoner exchanges, humanitarian gestures that do just about enough to keep the US engaged in the process. But otherwise, the talks are at a standstill. Russia is talking about a third set of direct talks, but the Ukrainian side say they have heard nothing from Moscow. Yesterday, at the same conference in St Petersburg, Mr Putin said, as he has done previously, that he considers Russians and Ukrainians to be "one people". "In that sense the whole of Ukraine is ours," he said. That statement shows that Russia's position has not changed since it launched the war. It still disregards Ukraine's sovereignty, although Mr Putin also says that Russia is not seeking Ukraine's capitulation. According to Ukraine's first deputy foreign minister Serhii Kyslytsia, during the second meeting in Instanbul, the head of the Russian delegation, Vladimir Medinsky, described the war as "Russians killing Russians". Mr Medinsky, an ultranationalist historian, has previously questioned the existence of the Ukrainian and Mr Putin's decision to appoint him as the head of the Russian delegation is a clear signal that Moscow has no intention to negotiate. "The talks in Istanbul have demonstrated that Russia has no interest in pursuing peace and is pursuing its maximalist demands," Peter Dickinson, a Kyiv-based editor of the Atlantic Council's Ukraine Alert, told RTÉ News. Instead of pursuing peace, Russia, emboldened by a lack of pressure from the US to end the war, is intensifying its drone and missile assaults on Ukrainian cities. Last Tuesday morning's deadly Russian drone and missile assault on Kyiv – a nine-hour assault and the largest so far this year – killed 30 people and injured more than 170. Twenty-three of the victims, a death toll that included children, were residents of a 9-storey block of flats in the city's western suburb of Solomianskyi. It was struck by a Russian missile. "I think people in Kyiv are very alarmed about the rising number of attacks," said Mr Dickinson. "There's a feeling that people are sitting ducks". This week, Mr Putin also said that he was willing to meet with Mr Zelensky during a final phase of negotiations. However, he quickly followed that statement by questioning the legitimacy of Mr Zelensky's presidency – a long-running Kremlin propaganda narrative that Mr Trump briefly bought into back in March, wrongly labelling the Ukrainian president as "a dictator without elections". Russia argues that Ukraine must hold new presidential elections given that Mr Zelensky's term as president officially ended in May 2024. It was the stuff of more counter-narrative fantasy. Mr Zelensky is a democratically elected leader whereas Russia's elections are rigged like a piece of scripted theatre. While Mr Putin continues his counter-narratives and Russia continues its attacks, Ukraine is still pursuing its strategy of calling for a ceasefire first before there is any talk over territorial issues. Mr Zelensky had arrived in the Canadian Rockies for the G7 meeting on Tuesday - the same day that Russia launched its massive drone and missile on Kyiv - hoping to get some face time with Mr Trump. But his long journey had been in vain. Mr Trump had left early to deal with the escalating situation in the Middle East, according to the White House. And so Mr Zelensky ended up meeting his European partners (plus Canada's new PM Mark Carney), just as he could have done in Europe. Mr Trump's departure may have been a coincidence but, either way, it demonstrated just how low down Ukraine features on the US president's list of priorities. "As of now, no productive talks are possible," said Oleksandr Kraiev, a Ukrainian foreign policy expert at the Ukrainian Prism thinktank in Kyiv. The West, he argues, needs to considering targeting Russia's trading partners in Asia, particularly China, with "proper second-grade sanctions" in order to pressure Moscow to stop the war. "The idea from the Ukrainian side is to find a new format that could change the pressure on Russia," said Mr Kraeiv. That new diplomatic format would need Europe to play more of a role in pressuring Russia to seriously negotiate given the Trump administration's reluctance to introduce new sanctions on Moscow. But more than a month after the leaders of France, Germany, Poland and the UK travelled to Kyiv and gave Russia a 48-hour ultimatum to agree to a ceasefire (or face new sanctions and increased military aid to Kyiv), the steam seems to have run out of European efforts to up the pressure on Russia. Mr Putin had torpedoed that ultimatum by offering direct talks in Istanbul, which Mr Trump approved. 'The Coalition of the Willing', a British and French-led initiative to shore up support for a European peace monitoring force in a post-war scenario, has gone quiet too, perhaps waiting for the outcome of this week's NATO annual summit in The Hague. Crucially, it also lacked US support. "The question now is how do you get Russia to be interested in peace," said Mr Dickinson, who believes it's "futile" to expect the US to make the breakthrough. "Now it's up to Europe to step up and take action but there is still no political will".
Irish Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
New RPZ rules mean you'll soon be paying even more rent. That's the whole point
It's amazing how the Government can oversee a decade-long housing crisis and still pretend they want to solve it. They engineered it, created it and take active steps to ensure it keeps on going. Look at the rush to restrict rent caps, the only measure preventing total housing chaos. Yet this reckless intervention is being framed as a national rollout of protections for renters - the exact opposite of what it is. They're calling it a 'reform' of the Rent Pressure Zones, which were reluctantly brought in in 2016 and only after runaway rents had reached a peak. Limiting rents to a 2 per cent annual hike was absolutely necessary to stop the greed. But these changes to RPZs will leave it toothless, and pile more pain on renters. The express purpose is to make rents higher so the market is "attractive" to investors. The only thing investors find attractive is money. Now, tenants are trapped into higher rents on both sides - forced to pay more if they stay long-term in the same place, or, if they move to a new place. Do I stay or do I go? Either way, you'll be stiffed for the highest rent possible. Landlords will be able to 'reset' rents after six years for sitting tenants; and they can reset them too, for new tenants. Government is determined to make the market more profitable for the investors they bend over for. This is being done on the backs of renters already stuck paying extortionate average rents of €2,000 nationally and €2,500 in cities. The reform - rushed into legislation on Friday - will ensure more rent hikes, sparking ever-upwards market rates. Sinn Fein's Eoin O Broin described it as "the deathknell of rent pressure zones as we know them'. The reason it's being done is to drive rents up. Taoiseach Micheal Martin and Housing Minister James Browne have stated this. They want an Ireland of higher rents. Martin said it was about enabling a 'stable environment in which to invest'. James Browne said: "Rents may go up." May? Will. If they don't go up, the investors won't invest. Our leaders claim it will be more costly in the short term, but lead to more supply in the long term. What use is that to tenants? That's punishing renters to pander to investors. It's also an empty pledge, as such investors deliver small volumes of very expensive rental in affluent parts of Dublin and Cork - helping just the chosen few. It goes against the Housing Commission advice, which recommended RPZs stay in place while an alternative system of rent controls is formulated. The Central Bank's Robert Kelly said the changes will 'be painful for renters'. He said: 'It's likely to be positive in terms of the level of supply, as they have rent resets within them. But the pain felt by households is not even, due to the housing crisis'. Good news for the investor - bad news for the renter. The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week Mike Allen from Focus Ireland called it 'a solution that says 'we can deliver more housing, but you won't be able to afford to live in it'. That's not a solution.' I was at the Raise the Roof rally outside the Dail on Tuesday. I've been attending such protests since 2015, usually with my son Luc and his friend Filip. I've seen them grow from little boys into young men, over the time. They're now taller than Eoin O Broin, who they first met at these protests when they were six or seven. And yet it is still going on. Childhoods continue to be lost to it. This latest move makes it clear the crisis is actually profit-driven policy. At the rally, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said they had gathered at the rally to call out the Government's "spoof and outright lies". TD Paul Murphy correctly called it a 'manufactured crisis' that 'transfers wealth from workers to a tiny few at the top, the corporate landlords and developers'. Deputy Rory Hearne said it is 'clearly government policy to have a permanent housing crisis'. For a government to do that to its own people is, in my view, tantamount to treason.
