Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Mar 2004

Transition Year Programmes: Presentation.

Today's meeting is with the representatives of the Department of Education and Science and with IBEC. It has been convened for the purpose of discussing transition year programmes in second level schools. On behalf of the members I welcome all of you to the committee and look forward to a fruitful discussion. From IBEC we have Caroline Nash, assistant director of education, and Michael Gillen, secretary of the science innovation and technology committee. From the Department of Education and Science we have Christopher McCamley, assistant principal officer in the curriculum assessment and national qualifications section, Doreen McMorris, assistant chief inspector and Patsy Sweeney, national co-ordinator for transition year and second level support service. You are all welcome.

Before we begin I want to draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this does not apply to witnesses who come before it. I would remind committee members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name, in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. We will start with the presentation of the Department. I understand that is being done by Ms McMorris.

Ms Doreen McMorris

What I intend to do, and I hope it will be fruitful, is to take the committee through the paper that has been distributed to members. I will do that as quickly as I can. There is some extra detail here that members may read, if they so wish.

Transition year is a one-year school-based programme that is taken upon completion of the junior cycle. Followed by one of the three leaving certificate programmes, it forms the three-year senior cycle available to post-primary schools. In international terms the transition year is considered as "upper secondary education" and not lower, as some people believe. The year is unique in so far as no other European country has comparable mainstream provision for second level students. It attracts much interest in that regard.

While there is no prescribed national curriculum for the leaving certificate, there are suggested areas of study in the transition year guidelines that were issued by the Department of Education in 1994-95. Schools design their own individual programmes according to a recommended curriculum framework that is clearly laid down. Each school has to have an up-to-date transition year document that describes its curriculum for the year. Members of the committee have been given a colourful leaflet that shows what is involved in the writing of a transition year programme, which they may refer to if they wish.

The transition year is designed to provide a bridge to help pupils make the transition from a highly structured environment of the junior cycle to one where they take greater responsibility for their own learning and decision making. Pupils participate in learning strategies which are active and experiential and should develop a range of transferable critical thinking and creative problem solving skills. Assessment is school-based and ongoing. It should be diagnostic and formative as well as summative and a range of modes and techniques of assessment should be used such as interviews, portfolios, diaries, project work and so on.

From the perspective of the individual student the transition year offers opportunities to engage in independent, self-directed learning; develop general, technical and academic skills; and mature and develop in an exam-free environment. I stress that the transition year is not part of the leaving certificate programme and it should not be seen as an opportunity for spending three years on that programme. However, it can be used to augment the leaving certificate experience and to consolidate the material that should have been covered in the junior cycle. It is strongly recommended when such material is covered that an original and stimulating approach is taken, which is different from that used in the exam years.

Currently the service provides support to 526 or just over 70% of second level schools. Some 22 schools are planning to come on board next September. In the last academic year more than 23,000 students took transition year, 45% of them male and 55% female.

As regards background, the transition year project goes back to 1974 when the then Minister for Education, Richard Burke, introduced it in three schools, with 66 students participating. By 1976 this pilot project had grown to 16 schools and the programme appeared for the first time in the rules and programmes for secondary schools, where it was described as "a one-year interdisciplinary programme" intended for students who were leaving school at that point and also for those who wished to continue with their studies.

No significant development took place until the mid-1980s. In 1985 the then Minister for Education, Deputy Gemma Hussey, gave a new lease of life to the transition year by proposing a six-year cycle. Her intention was to bring Ireland into line with the rest of Europe in terms of the age at which young people left the formal education system. By 1986 there were 73 schools in transition year. Schools at that time had to apply to the Department of Education for approval and access. This was an important development in so far as schools were empowered to devise and plan their own curricula.

Controlled access brought the numbers up to 162 by 1992 when a number of significant developments took place. Just before that, in 1991, the then Minister for Education, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, effectively mainstreamed transition year by a establishing a six-year cycle for schools that chose to participate. By 1993, significantly, some 460 schools were taking transition year. The changes that kicked in to encourage this involved an extra capitation grant of £50 per pupil. The Department of Education issued guidelines which said the transition year programme was "a matter for selection and adaptation by the individual school". A national in-service programme was put in place which involved five teachers on secondment providing training to 63 colleagues from participating schools. This was a new model of in-service which has been used many times since. From the perspective of the transition year, it meant that experienced teachers were driving the change in schools, that teachers were advising teachers and that a temporary team was put in place which could be disbanded when the goal was achieved. It also meant that on-site visits to schools were possible, which was a new step in the area of in-service. It was considered to be very effective as the program reached a large number of schools and caused minimum disruption.

The mission statement of the programme is to promote the personal, social, vocational, and educational development of students and to prepare them for their role as autonomous, participative and responsible members of society. There are three stated aims of the transition year which are interrelated and interdependent. These aims are the education of the students for maturity, the promotion of general, technical and academic skills with an emphasis on interdisciplinary self-directed learning, and education through experience of adult and working life as a basis for the student's personal development.

The curriculum in transition year is arranged into what the Department calls the onion. Peeling back the layers of transition year reveals the core subject area, which consists of subjects taken by students throughout post-primary school. These are subjects such as Irish, English, mathematics and physical education which are taught throughout the year. The next layer consists of sampling subjects. These subjects are included to give students opportunities to experience a range of subjects. For example, schools could decide to offer three science subjects to transition year students on a rotational basis. Equally, they could provide the three business subjects, while some schools provide a taste of third level education by providing courses in psychology or law.

The next layer consists of transition year specific modules. There is a broad range of modules from which to choose. It tends to cover areas such as computer skills, first aid, self-defence, personal development, car mechanics, road safety and interior design. These are called modules as they do not cover the full year. The outer layer is what is termed the calendar events. These are learning experiences which take place once or maybe twice a year. They are designed to develop the students' sense of responsibility as well as their practical and personal skills. They can take the form of work experience, community work, fieldtrips, visiting speakers, mini-companies, school drama and so on.

I have also provided the committee with the recommended areas of study in transition year, which are to be found in the Department's transition year guidelines. Control over curriculum content enables teachers to design programmes and courses tailored to the needs and interests of students. It also enables parents, the community and local enterprise to bring new kinds of learning opportunities to the students.

When drawing up the transition year programme, schools are encouraged to involve parents in the decision-making process. The big decision is quite often whether or not to introduce transition year. Most schools arrange sessions for parents of third year students to discuss the transition year programme. Some parents make their expertise available to the school during the transition year as visiting speakers, others may assist in the work experience programme, while all parents are invited to contribute to the evaluation of the programme. That last point is becoming part of what is actually happening out there in the schools.

There is no end of year examination in transition year, as the underlining philosophy of the year is learning-led rather than examination driven. The activity-based learning ethos of the year requires each school to engage in school-based assessment. The assessment should be diagnostic, formative and summative which helps students to identify their own strengths and weaknesses. There is a strong emphasis on portfolio assessment, project work, exhibitions, as well as oral, aural, practical tests and so on. The Department of Education and Science issues an official transition year certificate to participants. Schools also provide their own school-based certification for the particular activities in which students engage such as the ECDL.

A major external evaluation of transition year was conducted by the inspectorate of the Department of Education throughout 1994-95. According to the main findings, 89% of schools were following the transition year guidelines in a satisfactory manner. However, some concerns were expressed in the areas of assessment, evaluation and cross-curricular work. These areas then became the focus of attention of the newly appointed member transition year support team that was put in place. The areas were brought to the attention of schools and significant progress took place.

Three recent educational publications are of particular interest to all concerned with evaluating the programme. Do Schools Differ? is a study undertaken by Dr. Emer Smyth of the Economic and Social Research Institute. The study focused on 116 schools and its main aim was to identify the key schooling processes associated with enhanced academic and development outcomes among pupils. The many positive references to transition year can be summarised by a statement. "Transition year students definitely do better in fifth and sixth year. Those who don't do it miss out socially, in interacting with their peers, to be able to work with other people and in setting and achieving goals."

The second publication is the final report of the commission on the points system. The commission focused on a broad rather than a narrow range of educational experiences. It also produced evidence that students who have taken the transition year programme are more self-reliant learners than their peers. The third publication is the longitudinal study commissioned by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. The study tracked the junior certificate students of 1994 through to their leaving certificate. I will not quote any figures but will move on to the key findings of the study on the benefits or otherwise of transition year. Students who took transition year were more educationally adventurous than those who did not, were more likely to retain subjects at higher level, and to take up new subjects in fifth year. They scored higher leaving certificate results than their peers who did not take transition year; there was a raw difference of 46 CAO points between the two groups.

The study also looked at the students from the cohort who repeated the leaving certificate and took it in 1997, that is, who went ahead into the leaving certificate year, then repeated and so spent three years in the system. The repeat group scored only five CAO points more than those who took transition year and did the leaving certificate once. This report also draws attention to the positive impact of transition year in disadvantaged schools. The ESRI is conducting an assessment of the transition year programme which is funded by the Department of Education and Science but unfortunately we have only preliminary results at this stage.

Since 1993 there has been intensive provision for transition year in terms of professional development and support for teachers. That model has changed and support is provided through the second level support service based in Blackrock Education Centre whose remit is to provide continuing support for several programmes, including transition year. An important part of that remit is to help schools implement staff development activities to meet the school's needs. Within the service there is a national co-ordinator for transition year, Ms Patsy Sweeney, who is here today. She is dedicated to work on transition year, supported by the work of 12 regional development officers, one of whom has a background specific to transition year. She will be delighted to answer any questions from the committee. The SLSS provides cluster-based events for schools, modular courses for teachers, school and advisory visits, meetings with parents and whole staff in-service courses.

These include courses specific to transition year, for example mathematics in transition year. Others are generic, for example the portfolio and its uses in teaching and learning which would be relevant to teachers in other years too. The SLSS has a regularly updated website and provides advice on a needs basis - Patsy and her team are always available on the phone to us all - and specially designed resource materials of which there are many. The support service also works to expand the range of modules, initiatives and materials and actively promotes links to other agencies. We have furnished to the committee a list of the modules being actively developed and the links with other agencies in the first term of this year. The pupil-teacher ratio is 18:1, the same as in the other programmes for the junior certificate and the established leaving certificate.

In addition to the normal capitation grant the school receives €63.49 per transition year pupil. For vocational schools that goes to the overall VEC scheme. It is recommended that schools have a co-ordinator for work in transition year and that responsibility is often given to a person who holds a post of responsibility within the normal allocation for the school, but that is the school's decision.

The most significant challenges in transition year are the lack of a minimum national standard. We are very aware that there are some excellent examples of transition year but there are some at the other end of the scale too. The second is that provision is low in certain sectors such as vocational and community schools, whereas it is high in secondary schools. The third is the need to attract and retain teachers with high levels of motivation and energy to plan and implement the programme and who also have the appropriate competencies and skills. There is a need to develop a whole-school subscription to the rationale for transition year and school development planning is helpful at school level. Some are concerned that there are inadequate levels of parental knowledge about the programme and there is a tendency for excessive dependence on external support. Collaborative work with outside agencies is very important but some dependence on external support can be unhealthy. There is no systematic mechanism for sharing examples of good practice. There is a need for ongoing evaluation and sharing of the outcomes of that evaluation.

The NCCA is reviewing the senior cycle and has circulated its Directions for Development booklet based on the OECD Schooling for Tomorrow model which projects a vision of 2010 with a more open school environment where students have more responsibility and teachers are facilitators rather than conveyors of knowledge. I will skip to the implications of that vision for transition year. The proposals shaping up suggest a two or three year cycle continuing to be available, with the LCA being the only ringfenced, stand-alone leaving certificate programme. The proposal is that the innovatory features of transition year, together with enterprise and preparation for work link modules of the LCVP, should be incorporated into special transition year units. There will be other topics in these units but it is proposed that every student must take at least one transition year unit. If schools or students choose a three year senior cycle they would have to cover five or six of them.

The favourite model is that the concept underpinning transition year be woven into a programme for all students to varying degrees. The LCA students would have to take one transition year unit so all students would have some common areas of study and activity. The plan is for greater emphasis on practical, portfolio and project work and continuous assessment which reflects the approach for transition year. The proposed certificate is one that will cover more than examination results to include other activities and achievements made by school students. These are only just at proposal stage and the NCCA will be submitting its advice to the Minister for Education and Science later in the year.

I thank Ms McMorris for the presentation. I now call on Ms Caroline Nash on behalf of IBEC.

Ms Caroline Nash

It is interesting to have heard all the facts and figures. This presentation is from the business point of view and how IBEC views the transition year programme.

IBEC values education highly. In our strategy document to 2005, eight priorities have been listed of which education is one. As education needs to be economically relevant, IBEC favours a holistic rather than a utilitarian approach. The enterprise sector has an important role to play in aspects of the education system. The business sector is making a considerable investment in education at sectoral, regional, community and company level. These are through a variety of initiatives supporting technology, physical sciences, entrepreneurship, skills enhancement and measures designed to tackle disadvantage. IBEC anticipates that this interest and investment will increase in the coming years and the business sector must play whatever role it can in supporting the further development of a progressive and inclusive education system.

For its part, the State is responsible for providing educational infrastructure and resources, from pre-school through to third level, and for the design and delivery of high quality educational outcomes that meet individual needs and economic requirements. As with many other aspects of public policy, there is no shortage of analysis and reports charting the challenges and opportunities facing the education system. Government action across a variety of areas needs to be examined.

IBEC supports the transition year programme concept and wants it to become an integral part of the senior cycle programme in secondary school. The transition year programme tends to be a "stand alone" year between the junior certificate and the leaving certificate. The transition year programme is optional in some schools and compulsory in others. IBEC believes that it should not be seen in isolation. Hopefully, it can be broadened and integrated into the senior cycle programme, allowing personal, social and educational skills to be further developed throughout the leaving certificate programme.

IBEC suggests that the transition year programme should incorporate the following elements in order to develop and nurture key skills as a preparation for adulthood: the ability to take personal initiative, show self-reliance and display self-confidence; the ability to solve problems; a spirit of enterprise and innovation across all subjects; good written and oral communication skills; an understanding of the world of work and business skills in particular; the facility to "taste" subjects in order to make informed choices regarding future subject choice and career; a flexible modularised curriculum, which would expose students to a wide range of subjects to allow them to develop their own talents, skills and interests; a technological competence combined with an appreciation of the centrality of technology to our society and culture; competency in a foreign language and an appreciation of other cultures; an appreciation of the concept of lifelong learning.

The success of the transition year programme depends hugely on a distinct programme and policy being set out by the school with a team of teachers dedicated and committed to the transition year programme. A positive message given by the leadership of the school will greatly influence the motivation of the students. This positive message is necessary for the success of the programme. It is also necessary that the relevant stakeholders - teachers, students, parents and employers - have a shared meaning of what the programme entails.

As the transition year programme is not compulsory in all schools and limited in others, this inconsistency can affect the attitude of both students and staff. It suggests different values being placed on the transition year programme and, in some cases, a less important programme. A recent NCCA survey showed that in comparison with the applied leaving certificate vocational programme and the established leaving certificate programme, the transition year programme rates highly in all categories concerning development of skills, relevance to life experiences and balance between academic and practical skills. However, in terms of high level of public support, the transition year rated poorly. This perception could be changed if the variations in provision and success were addressed. Change can have a huge impact on people and not everyone is favourable to it. However, with adequate research, time and the support of all stakeholders, a new and more encompassing transition year programme can be developed.

IBEC manages and funds a number of educational initiatives. Those that are specific to transition year include the Irish Pharmaceutical and Chemical Manufacturers Federation which developed a science module currently piloted with the help of 30 teachers to be fully available next year, taking in seven science modules. There is also the business education links programme, started in 1995 by IBEC linking schools and business, involving work and teacher placement. Recently, the management of this programme has been handed over to the Business in the Community organisation. IBEC also co-funds the post primary languages initiative in conjunction with the Trinity College access programme. This allows five transition or fifth year students from disadvantaged schools to study a foreign language in another country.

I thank Ms McMorris and Ms Nash for these presentations. I invite Deputy Enright to ask the first question.

I welcome the representatives and thank them for their comprehensive reports.

Transition year is considered differently by schools. How is it intended to deal with this? I support the idea of schools being allowed to put their own programmes in place. However, some schools' programmes are seen as better than others' and students get more out of it. In maintaining schools' freedom to design programmes relevant to their pupils, how do the Department and IBEC propose to have standards set at a certain base?

I noted Dr. Smith's evaluation of transition year which stated that those who take transition year do better in fifth and sixth year. How is this evaluated? I do not see transition year as being about the As and Bs one gets in the leaving certificate. Dr. Smith continued about social interaction, but her overall assessment is based on examination results, which misses the whole point of transition year.

Last year, the Institute of Engineers stated that girls do better than boys in transition year. Will a new element have to be introduced into the programme to ensure that both genders get the same benefit?

Both presentations, particularly IBEC's, centred on what the transition year should incorporate. A number of objectives were suggested such as development of personal initiative, communication skills and the ability to solve problems. To what extent is transition year achieving these?

In the senior cycle as such, the emphasis is ultimately on the points. Transition year is the one chance we have to counteract that. In my experience, the students who have gained A and B grades have in some instances very poor communication skills. They wonder why it can be that even after third level education, with great results, they are not necessarily seen by employers as employable, because the key work skills have not been developed. Does Ms McMorris think that transition year could be changed or improved on, possibly with more concentration on the areas I have alluded to? Does she feel it is acceptable as it stands? I do not know if the people I meet have all done transition year.

Could Ms McMorris tell us if transition year automatically incorporates a foreign language? IBEC suggested it should. Education should be holistic rather than focusing on the need for people to join the workforce, but since we see what is now necessary, such as people with IT skills and a more research and knowledge-based economy, can transition year have a role in this area? If we know that in three years' time this is where Ireland is going, can we use transition year a little better in order to allow people learn about these areas?

Ms McMorris also talked of sampling different subjects, and mentioned third level. Perhaps she might explain a little further what sampling the Department does in order to let students see what is available at third level. People sometimes choose a course as a result of a one-day visit to UCD, for example, rather than as a result of knowing what the courses are about. Transition year might have a role in this area.

Ms McMorris also spoke of schools appointing a co-ordinator. Though I may have misunderstood, I got the impression that not every school offering a transition year has a full-time co-ordinator. Ms McMorris might comment.

I welcome the two delegations. Deputy Enright asked one of my questions, which relates to the Department's presentation regarding the figures and the reports that have emerged. I agree that it is counter-productive to reflect on the success of transition year by an assessment of A and B grades. I wonder about the nature of these inquiries. The delegation highlighted the commission looking at the points system by reference to a quotation that relies on anecdotal evidence to suggest that those who have gone through transition year are better learners. In the ESRI report, Do Schools Differ?, the quotation used is not very convincing. More research is being done. Before they even begin transition year, people who go through it are probably more predisposed to learn, and perhaps have a culture of learning in their family, community or school. Is that being factored in? It may have an effect on the figures.

Regarding third level, is any research available on drop-out rates and their possible co-relation to the numbers doing transition year?

There are reports which talk of the value of science subjects as the engine of the economy. Transition year probably occurs a little late, but it is when young people decide whether to study the physical sciences. There is reference to this in the Department's report. It should be a major focus for IBEC to encourage the preparation of accessible senior cycle science modules during transition year, so that students would not be intimidated by the periodic table of elements, chemical compounds or other such aspects which tend to turn students instead towards subjects like history. The IBEC delegation might comment.

Regarding the NCCA review, could Ms McMorris tell us if this will be tied in to the Minster's much-criticised countrywide consultation process on the future of education? The teachers, parents and the representative bodies should have a say in addition to the NCCA regarding the future of transition year. Getting a report from the NCCA is fine, but the Minister might implement it before the other consultation process is finished. Provisional feedback from the NCCA is opening a Pandora's box. That is good, because the last thing to emerge from Pandora's box was hope. There might be some hope for thinking outside the box in terms of education and transition year. It is currently a single year module. There is talk of making it more modular, over a three-year senior cycle period. Would there be an opportunity to expand it back as far as first year?

Early school leaving is a major problem. People leave before finishing primary school, while other leave after the junior certificate. Some of those who would benefit from transition year do not stay to participate in it. If there were some form of transition module during each year of the junior as well as the senior cycle, that might encourage people. When I chaired the education module at the recent Green Party Ard-Fheis, councillor Florence Doherty pointed out that a rural area such as Donegal has higher than average school drop-out rates. She noted that with the exception of Letterkenny, there is no third level facility in Donegal. How relevant can or should transition year be to the regional requirements of the people participating in it? That also ties in to the community and vocational schools. If one considers for example Donegal, the obvious areas where employment might be found are tourism, fisheries, possibly a marine institute, crafts and cultural areas. Currently, however, if people from Donegal go to third level education, they generally go outside the county, and tend not to come back and work there. That is contributing to the higher unemployment rate in Donegal - and this is just one example. How can transition year tie in to the specific needs?

I welcome IBEC's commitment to a holistic view of what transition year should be. More and more businesses are coming to realise that interpersonal and linguistic skills are very beneficial for business, and that more rounded individuals are needed. Traditionally in Ireland we have had poor entrepreneurial skills, which require creativity, lateral thinking and thinking outside the box. Would the IBEC delegation agree that among some of the companies operating in Ireland, there is a tendency, when seeking employees, to fit them into a specific module without their having the wider skills which might enable them to adapt if, for example, a company were to depart from Ireland? We are talking of the ability to upskill. If one is trained in a certain module, such as teleconferencing for example, and the company goes bust, one is left with nothing. Transition year should enable people to adapt and be flexible in a changing environment.

The IBEC delegation might also comment further regarding the role of science. We have the second-lowest level in the EU of indigenous investment in research and development. Should transition year take a new look at science? Should transition year start earlier, as I suggested, in order to introduce science at an earlier stage of second level education, so that young people even in first year, before they approach the curriculum proper, would have a better appreciation and knowledge of science? There is a higher added value within which we have to compete in this country. We are only going to do that if people veer towards science and, to a lesser degree, IT and business.

The schools are doing best in the transition year is a subjective issue. Schools themselves currently have much of the responsibility for this. Would it not be an idea to standardise certain modules to ensure each of the various areas of intelligence is covered? The people who drop out do not necessarily have the mathematical or linguistic skills, but they may possess creative, kinaesthetic or spatial attributes that could be developed. Despite their linguistic barriers, they might even be good at interpersonal relationships and this should be identified at an early stage so that students who may not be good leaving certificate academic candidates could still have a contribution made to their future development at the transition year stage. Should there not be more focus on the creative skills to complement the academic ones and, if so, how should this be done?

The point about science was covered by Deputies Andrews and Gogarty. I will not touch on that again, but I support what they said.

With regard to evaluation of the programme, while I heartily support the idea of an holistic approach, I will play devil's advocate for a moment. Part of the raw data often extracted from evaluation focuses on points, achievements and the results of examinations. While the NCCA came out positively in 1999 with its evaluation of the programme's progress up to then, a subsequent report by Dr. Sean McDonagh's skills initiatives unit, not referred to by Ms McMorris, was not nearly as positive. In fact it expressed considerable concern.

I am talking about the raw data of leaving certificate results. It concentrated on that somewhat and expressed concern regarding the breaking of the continuity of study. It also expressed concern about appearing to put pressure on male students to move towards apprenticeships too young. My recollection may be faulty in that regard and if so I can be corrected. However, these are among a number of issues that the McDonagh report homed in on. I wonder whether the ESRI is taking on board that report as well as the 1999 study.

I am interested to know why there is such a significantly lower take-up among vocational, comprehensive and community schools vis-à-vis secondary schools given that everyone speaking on educational matters is so supportive of the holistic approach, already referred to by IBEC. Since there has been so much innovation in vocational and community schools over the years, it appears rather strange that they have not embraced this with the same enthusiasm as other initiatives. I am also surprised, from Ms McMorris’s presentation, that there is such a low level of parental knowledge as regards the transition year. Have any initiatives been taken nationally, regionally, or locally to promote it? When one is talking about the issue of raw achievements at the end of a structured course there would naturally be some concern - and significantly, among parents - as to what is on offer for the student in terms of how it can contribute to his or her leaving certificate and towards competing for a college place, given that four out of every five jobs on offer over the next ten years will be for third level graduates. I am surprised there is still an inadequate level of awareness among parents in that regard.

The question was mooted last year or the year before of the appropriateness or otherwise of confining transition year to post-junior certificate and pre-leaving certificate students. A number of speakers have referred to exploring the idea of introducing it earlier. A suggestion was also made to explore the idea of introducing the scheme post-leaving certificate, at the transition stage between second and third levels. Many merits have been articulated for the transition period between the structured junior certificate programme and the less structured and more self-directed leaving certificate. However, a comparable argument that I have read asserts that the move from second to third level is a far bigger leap than the transition from junior to senior cycle level.

I welcome the delegation and thank it for the extensive and comprehensive reports given to the committee by way of submission. The mission statement on page 3 sets out to promote the personal, social and vocational and education development of students. The transition year was supposed to give people the space to learn. I was involved in it for about 20 years and I saw that it did give students space as well as providing flexibility for the managements and teachers involved and those who were motivated to make a success of it in the schools where it was adopted.

I get annoyed, bearing in mind what Senator Fitzgerald and Ms Nash have said, at the low perception which the public has of the transition year. It is imperative that this is changed. There are students, parents and teachers, it must be said, who dismiss transition as a "doss year". That is an insult to everyone involved, from the Department and the Minister for Education and Science right down to students who participate in it and who have been very successful.

Those people who home in on statistics should realise they are talking about people in this instance. The achievements are documented in that report and in the findings we have seen and there are people behind those statistics. The successes are often overlooked and never identified. That is the element in which I see most value. It is not just a matter of points, but rather achievement. The successes reflect the motivation of post-junior certificate students in transition year to continue. That is something that can probably never be assessed. How many would have dropped out?

If we take any school in a disadvantaged area it is simple to see where the drop out stage comes. Students struggle until junior certificate and then they are gone. Look at those who participate in transition year, in whatever form, in any school. It will vary, but that reflects the flexibility of the programme. The positive aspect of transition year which is often lost is that it can provide a vehicle to keep people in education and to achieve. One should not dismiss but rather embrace the statistics, as shown. They should be identified and analysed further if need be, but the most important thing is to support the transition year philosophy.

Can the representatives from the Department of Education and Science clearly say there is sufficient support, not necessarily in monetary terms alone? When one considers the tight budgets that schools have to manage, whether at vocational or secondary school level, they are straitjacketed for resources. Look what has to be done with the €63 additional capitation payment. One has to provide materials for a huge range of other subjects which might not necessarily be within the existing curriculum of the school, such as art, music and physical education, and subjects which contribute to the personal improvement of communication skills.

In our area, we got videos and this increased students' confidence so that they could stand in front of a microphone or camera and speak. This was a major breakthrough for many children who would have been shy or withdrawn. There is no support in a meaningful way from the Department of Education and Science to provide schools with the means to embark on more exciting programmes. While motivation is present, and we have personnel, resources are not available.

Although the programme was flexible, the Department of Education and Science was very rigid. The timetabling and personnel to support the schemes were very rigid when a greater loosening of the reins on the issue of school time for the programme might have been better. It is grand to see such plans on paper but the practicalities of implementing them will mean a very rigid interpretation of school timetabling. This is an impossible task if we are to make it meaningful. I would hate to see the Department of Education and Science, or the NCCA, report on the basis of dismantling this as an identifiable year within the school. If we are to discuss it as a unit here and a unit there, we can forget about it. The reason it was established was to give space for people to get into an area where they could do things that they would never otherwise experience.

I saw a report about a fortnight ago that somebody within IBEC criticised the communications skills of third level graduates as well as those coming from the schools. That is very damaging. It is demoralising to the graduates and to the people who will be endeavouring to improve this. This is very important and is what transition year is trying to do.

As has been said by Ms Caroline Nash, there is a serious onus on the Department of Education and Science to change the perception of transition year. The current perception is wrong and too dismissive and it is being done from a distance because people see a flexibility that they are not accustomed to. They see young people going out into society, participating in society and being supportive of disadvantaged situations. Some people say that they are "on the doss" and we have to deal with this sort of situation. My earnest hope is that the Department of Education and Science will never dismantle the transition year as an identifiable year where development and space can be provided.

I welcome Ms McMorris and her colleagues from the Department of Education and Science and our guests, Mr. Gillen and Ms Nash from IBEC. I feel very much in a comfort zone this morning as a former transition year student, along with my colleague, Deputy Barry Andrews, and one who carried on to teach transition year students.

We were not together in the same class.

No. The Deputy is about five years older than I am.

I was older and way ahead of the Deputy.

It may have had an impact on our career choices but we will not discuss that further. I am a firm supporter of transition year and I have listened very intently to what has been said this morning from all sides of the room. It started with 14 schools in the mid-1970s which undertook this innovation at the time. My own school, St. Mary's Secondary School in Nenagh, happened to be one of them and they have continued a very successful transition year programme there since.

However, the success of transition year throughout the country is based largely on the motivation of the students and teachers who take on the course. One has only to visit the schools where transition year is implemented to find very busy teachers who are also involved in all of the other programmes such as the applied leaving certificate. They are the people with the motivation and the creativity and often they are exhausted. This is why I agree with what Senator Ulick Burke said about resources. This is necessary if we are to expand this even at senior level, while the junior level ought to be examined also. Our committee has a huge amount of information and I hope we will not make any hard and fast decisions as we need to do a lot more thinking on this matter.

I note what the IBEC group has said on communication skills. The area of public speaking was one that was considered long and hard by the Department of Education and Science with a view to making it a compulsory aspect of the transition year experience. I highly recommend this. We have highly qualified people who have gone through college and are then not able to conduct interviews efficiently without getting grinds and tuition. It is an area that transition year can work on and offer awards to people under the junior toastmasters programme.

Ms McMorris told us in her presentation that one of the difficulties is the need to attract and retain teachers. People who become involved with transition year are aware of the commitment that is involved. This will often take place without books and without the supports that the teacher is familiar with in other classroom settings. To expand that throughout the teaching sector and bring it in across the board at second level would be a major undertaking. In the past, I have known of schools where they were able to provide an afternoon of activities for children at the junior level of second level and it has been successful in the past. Then all the other programmes came into place, such as CSPHE and all of the mandatory ones that soon absorbed the timetable and that flexibility was lost.

We have many very good proposals but we must be realistic. I am aware that there are many schools where transition year has not been made available at all, where students go through a system and never get the wonderful flavour of transition year. I ask what the Department is doing about that. We talk about the €63 per student and we also observe that the secondary schools are far more participatory than the VEC schools. Although the secondary schools are less funded overall than the VECs, we are hoping to level that very soon. Should we not try to bring it to all schools first and give that flavour before people are faced with much greater proposal within our educational system?

The motivation of the student is paramount in the success of the programme. There are many reasons students undertook it in the past, such as to bring them to the school leaving age. We are a country with some of the youngest school leavers in Europe, which is also why we are addressing the issue.

Issues such as resources and tired teachers matter. I am not long out of the classroom myself, and I know that we have very dedicated people and we have to look after them. That is why it is difficult to attract them and to keep them there. Often, they need the break from transition year themselves, in order to let themselves back into the regular classroom experience, so that they can return again.

The biggest challenge of all is the transition from what we have currently to what is being proposed here. If we are to expand it throughout the senior level and to think about the junior level, that transition will be a major marketing issue for parents and students. Senator Ulick Burke has said that it is perceived by some people as "a doss year" and these are very often people who know little about transition year. We also need the co-operation of people in the business sector in whose absence the scope of transition year would be limited. I pay tribute to them for their continued co-operation and the valuable experience they afford students in transition year. We need to discuss and think this out further. In addition, we need to get feedback from the students themselves, both those who opt for transition year and those who do not, to input into the final decision making process.

The debate this morning has been most interesting and challenging. In its submission, the NCCA has described a school that may be found on Mars by that new piece of equipment that has landed there recently. I do not wish to be cynical because transition year should eliminate cynicism within the education system. We must be realistic given the resources available and, at the same time, we must address the over-academic educational system at second level. We have plenty of food for thought and I welcome the input from the Department and from our IBEC guests this morning.

I welcome our guests. This has been a very interesting discussion. My first reaction is that there are lessons from this for the general academic programme in our schools. In transition year creative thinking and different levels and types of intelligence are developed and tested, yet no points are awarded in the leaving certificate for what a student does in transition year. Should we not reward this in some way in terms of points or access to third level programmes? I am interested in the witnesses' views on that.

There is a problem with teachers doing school-based assessment. The principle should exist that anyone who does transition year and develops myriad skills should be rewarded. Deputy Hoctor's comments about teachers finding it more challenging to teach transition year than to teach leaving certificate is very interesting. This is a negative reflection on the leaving certificate and points to the need to change it and incorporate much of what is being done in transition year in terms of the content and assessment of the leaving certificate, and the way in which we judge students.

Students aged 23 and over who would not have had enough points in their leaving certificate examinations are getting into third level courses and are doing very well because they have the kind of skills that are developed in transition year. We have much to learn about the leaving certificate from all of this. I congratulate everyone who has been involved in the development of transition year over the years.

The low provision of the transition year option in community, comprehensive and vocational schools was mentioned. Transition year has a marked positive impact in disadvantaged schools. By and large, vocational, community and comprehensive schools are very open in their access and provide for disadvantaged children in a way that many private secondary schools do not. What specific efforts are being made to sell the benefits of transition year to this category of schools? Disadvantaged children are losing out and we should have a policy to ensure that they do not lose out. Given that extra capitation is provided and that the grant is given to the VECs in the overall budgets, why are they not taking it up? I assume there are no problems and that the VECs hand over the grant to the schools concerned. If a difficulty exists, it needs to be addressed immediately.

Has there been any feedback from teachers concerning the programme? Have they been asked how they feel about the assessment of the transition year programme for leaving certificate points?

The IBEC presentation was very positive and I welcome IBEC's statement that it favours a holistic rather than a utilitarian approach to education. IBEC might have been misrepresented on that issue and it is very useful to hear from it directly. There is a danger that we are being pushed into a utilitarian approach to education, which nobody around this table would favour.

I hope that what has come out of this meeting will have a positive effect in terms of expanding transition year. A transition element, whether it is a year long programme or separate modules, should be mandatory for all schools. Otherwise, children are missing out because of the school they happen to be attending. In some respects, I differ from Senator Ulick Burke on whether it should be a year or should be across the board. I would favour the latter.

Are there difficulties for students in making the transition from transition year into the senior cycle and having to return to the academic cycle again?

Ms Nash

I will let Mr. Michael Gillen answer the science questions. On the question of up-skilling and so on, we are very aware that some people can work in an industry for a certain period of time and then find themselves out of a job. They do not know where to go and do not have the necessary skills to elicit that.

Within our organisation, we have a certain number of committees. We have a human resources and social policy committee, which encompasses an education committee in which we look at the whole concept of life-long learning and how one can encourage people to learn. In companies which would have a proactive approach to offering training and further development and learning opportunities, some courses are not always taken up by the people who actually need them most. We are trying to get that concept and idea into the workplace. That has to start in the schools and transition year is a year when these ideas can be developed. I would love to know which of my colleagues criticised the communication skills of school leavers and graduates.

I return to Deputy O'Sullivan's comment on whether we can evaluate skills and award points for them. We are involved with Dublin City University in an initiative which is looking at the issue of awards for extra-curricular activities. It considers areas such as leadership, participation and motivation within sport or any of the extra-curricular activities in which students are involved throughout their college career. Starting from this year, it is hoped the initiative will become part of the credit transfer system that applies to students. They can then take that further with their degree course. They will get points and marks for this. Perhaps a similar initiative could be considered through the school system, but I do not know whether it would be feasible.

I participated in the transition year programme, which was compulsory in my school in 1981. It was one of the first schools to participate. I, too, hate to hear people saying it is a doss year. I fully support it. The image must be changed publicly. We need to convey the message that transition year is a positive thing. The idea should be transferred into the whole leaving certificate programme. Even in the schools where it runs extremely well and is a very positive experience, the students finish transition year and then need to get down to studying and getting points. We are seeking a more seamless transition from one to the other. I will let Mr. Michael Gillen answer the science questions.

Mr. Michael Gillen

A comment made by Senator Ulick Burke when he spoke of public perception stuck in my mind. Public perception is the key. I loved Deputy Andrews's remark that education was the engine of society; the perception is that we are using dirty diesel. I put it to Senator Burke that whoever made the criticism on the lack of communications, it was a constructive criticism. I interviewed a fellow yesterday for a European project, and every time we asked him a question he looked all over the room. He could not look us in the eye. This lad was awarded the prize of student of the year four years running. There is a difficulty with the lack of communication skills coming out of schools, and it goes back to what Deputy Hoctor said. We are so dependent on the people and we have to acknowledge what they are doing.

My brief is to look after the science and technology end of things, and I am always delighted when I hear someone like Deputy Gogarty saying that we should start teaching science a lot earlier. We should start it a lot earlier rather than having this idea of dealing in chunks. Chunks do not work with kids. Chunks work maybe with people at our stage in life but not with kids. We need to start introducing this at a much earlier level.

Again, it is back to perception. The two key players we must address in terms of change in perception are the kids themselves and the mammies of Ireland. I think it was Senator Fitzgerald who said——

What about the daddies?

Mr. Gillen

I think the mammies are the key players because——

The daddies do not communicate at all.

Mr. Gillen

That is possibly it. One hears the likes of Senator Fitzgerald asking, "What is in it for my Johnny and my Mary?" That is a recurring theme.

In regard to science, a terrific report was brought out - and I will not go down that route - by the task force. A lot has been done and much more needs to be done, but we have to start addressing the issues because there are so many positive messages.

I took my kids into the St. Patrick's Day parade. My favourite float - and I did not realise where it came from - was the transition year class in Naas, which produced a fantastic display. This goes back to creativity and touching paths that will always be missed in the education system. When those children bring that back into their senior cycle and when they go on into a job, university or whatever, they are bringing something they would never have been taught. They have learnt it themselves. That is why one of the core things we are looking for is a facility whereby students can taste the experience.

I am a chemist, and they say that the only difference between chemistry and cooking is that one does not lick the spoon when doing chemistry, but we want the kids of Ireland to start licking the spoons. We really want them to start tasting the experiences that transition year can give them. That is why we are wholly supportive of it in a very holistic manner.

There are lots of issues that the Department representatives could address. I think we are relatively close to a vote in the Dáil, if I am reading the situation correctly. It may take ten minutes, so the officials can respond to whatever points they wish.

Ms McMorris

I will respond very briefly to a few general points. There were many questions and I have to confess that I do not have an organised set of notes, so I will pick some of the big issues that were raised.

The first relates to the NCCA's proposal, and I wish to clarify that I put that into the paper for two reasons: first, to communicate to the committee the level of recognition of the success of the transition year in so far as aspects of it are so strongly featuring in the proposals that the NCCA seems to be shaping by way of the transition year units, the focus on key skills, broader assessment approaches and so on; and second, of course, to indicate that in terms of expansion or any change in the system nothing is likely to happen until such time as the broad set of advice comes from the NCCA to the Minister and the Minister makes decisions.

I stress that the NCCA proposals are no more than proposals. Even in today's newspapers concerns are being voiced by different groups about the huge culture change that will be involved. We must be terribly aware of that. I will clarify a couple of small points relating, firstly, to the issue of the year not being ring-fenced. The proposal as it stands is that schools have the option of continuing to have the sort of year that people here experience - the once-off ring-fenced year - followed by a two-year senior cycle. There is also the option within the proposal for some schools to spread in a wedge-type way the transition year units over the three years. The plans that seems to be coming together will leave a lot of flexibility for individual schools.

How can Ms McMorris envisage incorporating that within a very rigid timescale?

Ms McMorris

I was just going to address that. The NCCA will recommend a much more flexible approach, with a complete change of the senior cycle in terms of the regulations and so on. Perhaps I should not have mentioned the NCCA document at all but it is on the public domain and alive at the moment in terms of discussion. However, there is a lot to be teased out, and perhaps the NCCA should be sitting here at this point and not I. I wish to clarify that I have pulled something perhaps a little out of context simply with the intention of showing the committee how successful the transition year seems to be.

In regard to the Senator's question on the Minister's roadshow, that roadshow is looking at the education system as a whole.

Including curriculum change.

Ms McMorris

Yes, but curriculum and transition year is just one aspect of that. It has not actually come up to a great extent in discussion. I understand from the notes, which I have had checked in advance of this meeting, that there has been very little reference to transition year in the course of those meetings. Certainly, however, the Minister will be mindful of everything when the advice of the NCCA comes his way.

I have a few other quick points, and I am terribly conscious of the clock. Many committee members raised the issue of standards. Standards will always be a big issue for us and defining standards will always be a challenge. There is a tendency within the whole system for parents and educationalists to look to something that can be measured. The danger of the skills promoted in transition year is that they are very difficult to measure and, quite often, cannot be appreciated until many years after one leaves school. We must be careful about using the word "standards," and the idea that there should be certain standard modules for all schools moves away from the concept of transition year, which is intended as a school-designed course to meet the needs of students. We are already open to criticism by having standard programmes which come in one or two sizes that are meant to fit all. I cannot give a definitive answer but I certainly recognise the point.

On the question of girls doing better than boys, I acknowledge that point as a feature of performance at school level across the system, not only transition year, and it is shared widely by other countries. It is a challenge but not one specific to transition year.

Coming back to the issue of the transition year co-ordinator, to clarify the position for Deputy Enright, there is not a specific post allocated to a transition year co-ordinator but it is one of the recommended list of responsibilities that would be associated with a standard allocation of posts for the school. Our experience is that it tends to be a well recognised responsibility.

Deputy Andrews made points in regard to the literature, and I apologise if it appears as though we were very selective in picking the literature. No one of the three pieces of literature referred to focused specifically on the transition year. They looked at aspects of the system that influence outcomes in a broad way and do refer to the transition year in anecdotal terms. They do not set out to do any more than that. I promise that Dr. Smith's new research will be with us all in the not so distant future. It is at an advanced stage, though I cannot give a date, and that study does focus totally on the transition year. If this meeting is repeated in six months I may have that rather than having to look to these more broad pieces of literature.

I will briefly address the issue of the uptake in vocational schools, to which many members have referred. The transition year is open to every school now. The Department has no restrictions and all schools can apply, but many of the vocational schools are in small rural areas and simply because of the school size, and also possibly because many of them are choosing to provide the LCA as an extra programme, the school management are making the decision to make other programmes available rather than transition year. There are a lot of factors, but it is not as though the Department is excluding anybody. That is not the case. In fact, it encourages schools to provide transition year. The focus in the schools now is very much upon school development planning. Schools are being supported and encouraged to look at the provisions they are offering their students and match them with the needs of the students. It is through school development planning that schools have to make decisions as to what is right and appropriate for their students.

Alongside school development planning is a new focus on self-evaluation. Schools are promoting this through documents, training and so on in that area. School development planning and self-evaluation should link in with external evaluation, which is taking place on a much greater scale now than ever before. Schools have all of these means whereby they can really assess where they are, where they should be going and consequently make the choices, we hope, to meet the needs of their students.

My final point is on the whole business of points in the leaving certificate. As the committee members all know, the points are decided on, agreed by and belong to the third level institutions. I would make two points. First, it is very difficult to put a measure on the benefits of transition year. It goes back to the point I started with. How can one decide how many points will be allocated for completing the transition year when there are different degrees to which people can complete and commit themselves to transition year? I will leave that point with the committee to think about.

I end on a positive note by suggesting that after the junior certificate, students are more mature and able to perform better in their last two years, consequently gaining higher points. Therefore, there is an indirect return in terms of points for students' input into transition year. I also suggest that with increased maturity, it may well be that students engage better at third level, have those research skills and so on and are able to be more successful in their studies. Perhaps the benefits are not measurable in points form but in terms of more indirect returns to the student.

It has been a very informative meeting, and I thank all of the witnesses for their presentations and for answering the questions. I thank the members also for their contributions.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.20 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 8 April 2004.
Barr
Roinn