Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 Apr 2022

Leaving Certificate Reform: Discussion (Resumed)

I welcome Ms Arlene Forster, CEO, Mr. Barry Slattery, deputy chief executive officer, and Ms Evelyn O'Connor, acting director, at the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA. I also welcome from the State Examinations Commission, SEC, Ms Andrea Feeney, CEO, Ms Elaine Sheridan, head of examinations and assessment division, and Mr. Richard Dolan, director of operations. The witnesses are here to discuss leaving certificate reform.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite Ms Forster to make her opening statement, followed by Ms Feeney. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. Each member has an eight-minute slot to ask a question and for the witnesses to reply. As the witnesses are probably aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on its website following the meeting.

I remind 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, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name, or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed by the Chair to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with such direction.

I call Ms Forster and Ms Feeney to make their opening remarks.

Ms Arlene Forster

On behalf of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, I thank the Chair and committee members for this opportunity to speak with them today. My name is Arlene Forster and I am the CEO of the NCCA. I am joined by two colleagues, Mr. Barry Slattery, deputy CEO, and Ms Evelyn O’Connor, acting director.

Appointed by the Minister for Education, the council is a representative structure. Its remit is to advise the Minister on curriculum for early childhood education, primary and post-primary schools, and the assessment procedures employed in schools and examinations on subjects that are part of the curriculum. In carrying out this remit, the council oversaw a review of senior cycle between 2016 and 2020. The review involved extensive work with schools and high levels of collaboration and engagement with stakeholders. It culminated in the development of the Senior Cycle Review:

Advisory Report which was submitted to the Minister for consideration and published following the Minister’s announcement on 29 March 2022.

The advisory report records and responds to the range of stakeholders’ views about how senior cycle could evolve to meet the needs of all young people. In addition, the report signals the common ground that emerged. That common ground centres on a renewed vision for this stage of education and on clear purposes and guiding principles for a redeveloped senior cycle. In this way, the report provides strong foundations for the redevelopment of this stage of education so that it continues to do the following: educate the whole person; helps every student to become more enriched, engaged and competent; serves collective and individual purposes; and helps students to access diverse futures.

The report identifies three key areas for further research and action. These include: providing more flexible pathways through senior cycle; having a greater mix of subjects and modules, including technical, creative and vocational options; and broadening assessment and reporting arrangements. The report summarises the themes that emerged in the review and outlines what these might mean in a redeveloped senior cycle. The three key areas - pathways and flexibility, curriculum components, and assessment, reporting and transitions - link directly to the themes identified by this committee in its exploration of leaving certificate reform.

The report also describes conducive conditions which we need to pay attention to as we move to the next stage of work. The report concludes with a commitment to continued extensive consultation and collaboration with schools and all education partners as the senior cycle is redeveloped and as a framework for senior cycle is co-constructed. The council looks forward to a briefing with Department of Education officials in the coming weeks as it plans a programme of work grounded in the advisory report and the Minister’s announcement.

Moving briefly to the Irish language, as part of ongoing work on senior cycle, the NCCA developed draft leaving certificate specifications for Irish L1 and L2. Work is advanced on the analysis of the consultation data and findings will be presented in a report later this year. In addition, a report on the early enactment review of junior cycle Irish will be published. These reports, along with the Minister’s recent announcement, will provide a basis for the next steps in this important work.

Further information is provided in the NCCA’s written submission and accompanying reports. My colleagues and I are happy to answer questions members may have.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to attend before them to discuss the reform of the leaving certificate and the senior cycle. My name is Andrea Feeney and I am the chief executive officer of the State Examinations Commission, SEC. I am joined by my colleagues, Ms Elaine Sheridan, head of examinations and assessment, and Mr. Richard Dolan, director of operations.

The commission’s statutory responsibilities include the development, assessment, accreditation and certification of the second level school examinations and the board of commissioners are the custodians of this key national service. The SEC is committed to working in partnership with all education stakeholders to develop and deliver a high-quality examinations and assessment system, centred on the needs of students.

Our appearance before the committee follows the recent announcement by the Minister and the publication by the NCCA of its report on the review of senior cycle. We commend our NCCA colleagues for their extensive work and recognise the deep and meaningful contribution of stakeholders, many of whom have already appeared before this committee, in the review and consultation process.

The stated purpose of the leaving certificate is to measure the extent to which each student has fulfilled the objectives of the syllabus.

This examination is an important event in the lives of young people. In conducting the examinations, the SEC prioritises fairness and equity, quality in all aspects and upholding examinations integrity and consistency of standards to the greatest degree possible.

It is also noted that the leaving certificate results are used for a number of other purposes, including by employers and as a tool of progression to further education. The latter, in particular, increases the high-stakes nature of the leaving certificate.

In advance of this appearance, the SEC made a submission under the four broad thematic headings identified by the committee. I will now focus briefly on three of those headings.

We have set out in our submission the wide range of components that we provide that extend the assessment landscape far beyond the written examinations and allow students to demonstrate their knowledge, understanding and skills in areas that cannot always be assessed in a written examination. Of the 41 subjects being examined at leaving certificate level in 2022, 27 have a component of assessment additional to the written examination worth at least 20%, and in some subjects, up to 60% of the marks.

We look forward to building on this experience in the reform of the senior cycle. We will work with the NCCA, Department colleagues and through the implementation structures to give effect to the changes announced, including reducing the reliance on the final written examination. We also will engage in a programme of research and development on a number of aspects, including the impact of weighting and timing of these additional components in order that they are worth at least 40% in all subjects. We also will implement interim measures to spread the load of assessment pending full subject redevelopment. High-stakes examinations are, by their nature, inherently stressful events. Therefore, care will be required in spreading the load of assessment to mitigate the potential for stress throughout the school year. We also have been asked to jointly research with the NCCA externally moderated school-based assessment and how it will operate in an Irish context, noting that such assessment models are widely used in other jurisdictions.

On digital learning, the SEC has invested in a number of key IT tools to streamline communications, enhance transparency and improve the delivery of examinations. Coursework components in some leaving certificate subjects are completed digitally by students, and technology also has a very significant role for students with special educational needs, allowing them to access the examinations. However, the deployment of technology in assessment, rather than supporting assessment, is at an early stage at second level education in Ireland. It is recognised by the OECD that the development of digitally-based examinations is resource intensive and expensive, and often beyond the reach of national examinations boards. We welcome the inclusion in the announcement of exploration of the potential uses of IT in examinations and assessment, as well as the recognition that this must be tied into the digital strategy for schools.

Accessibility in the examinations starts at design stage and we design our test instruments to be as accessible to the widest range of students as possible. Through the reasonable accommodations at certificate examinations, RACE, scheme, we provide students with special needs with the support arrangements they need to access the examinations. Much work has been done by the board of the SEC to reform the scheme in recent years. The scheme will be subject to further review in the context of senior cycle reform and a priority will be increasing the use of assistive technology to enhance access and to further support independent learning.

The recent announcement by the Minister for Education sets the trajectory for an ambitious programme of senior cycle reform. The review process demonstrated consensus on the need for change. It also recognised the high level of public support and trust attached to the existing leaving certificate qualification and modes of assessment. In undertaking further work, there will be particular focus by the SEC in seeking to underpin validity and reliability in the assessment in order that the integrity of the leaving certificate qualification and public trust and confidence in that qualification are maintained.

The examinations system relies upon the support of teachers, school leaders and other stakeholders for its success. We welcome and value the contribution of the student and parent voice in what we do and how we do it and we wish to strengthen and deepen our relationships in our ongoing work and as we embark on the process of reform.

We look forward to working with colleagues in the NCCA, with the Minister and officials in her Department and with all of the stakeholders in education in the time ahead, contributing to the necessary reform of the educational landscape at senior cycle to the benefit of students and wider society

My colleagues and I would be very happy to respond to any questions that the committee may have. I apologise for going over time.

It is okay. Our first member to question the witnesses is Deputy Ó Laoghaire, followed by Deputy Ó Ríordáin.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue. This is probably the first time since some of the Covid restrictions were lifted that these two organisations are before the committee. I wish to acknowledge that even though issues around the examinations and so on were much debated, both organisations worked under extreme pressure during the Covid pandemic. I acknowledge the work that went in at that stage.

I will briefly touch on the issue of the Irish language and the Teanga 1, T1, and Teanga 2, T2, specifications. I do not require a response because I know that response will be that there is to be a consultation, we are going to work through that and that is all okay. I want to put the following point on record, as I did in my written submission. There is a logic to two separate approaches but students need to be incentivised in the form of additional marks or offering this as an additional subject. I find it difficult to understand why fluent Irish speakers or Gaeltacht students would take on a more challenging course without gaining some benefit.

More generally in terms of the leaving certificate, Ms Feeney talked about a consensus nearly emerging. I would not say that there is a complete consensus but there was a broad consensus and members of this committee found that as well in our discussions on the leaving certificate. A lot of the issues and concerns that existed related to whether the leaving certificate measures the skills that are needed in a modern society and whether the amount of stress that is put on the final terminal exam is disproportionate. The move towards greater continuous assessment is something that I and a lot of the committee members would welcome.

What was outlined by the Minister for Education was necessarily broad, vague and to a large extent unclear. I do not say that as a criticism because one must start these processes with a high-level vision but a lot of questions must be worked out and I wish to put two to both organisations. The term "continuous assessment" can mean any number of things. During the past week the teachers' unions have vocally expressed their concerns about marking the work of their own students. Obviously there are arguments for and against but continuous assessment does not necessarily mean teachers must mark their own students' work. Can the representatives of both organisations comment on the extent to which non-teacher-assessed continuous assessment is possible? Are additional components required? The example that has been given is the subject of chemistry. One could have a practical exam and there are practical exams as distinct from projects in, for example, construction studies. Perhaps there could be short papers at an earlier stage. To what extent is this possible? To what extent are there areas that cannot be delivered externally and independently, and require the input of the teacher who knows his or her students? These issues comprise a lot of what we must work out.

There is another issue that is not immediately clear but perhaps it is and just was not clear to me. We are talking about taking an English paper and an Irish paper in fifth year. To me, the Minister does not seem to have precluded additional marks in other subjects being required in fifth year. There are no details on whether that will be possible and I ask the representatives of the NCCA for their view.

My next query is for both organisations. If we are going down the route of more additional components as part of the 40%, whether that is in terms of the example I have given of chemistry or of other subjects, schools will require a significant investment in equipment. I have already mentioned construction studies and the equipment that schools have for that is not fit for purpose. I mean that the equipment does not support schools in ensuring that students can get the benefit of studying these subjects.

My final question is for the SEC. There is a proposal that network schools will lead the way in the roll-out of this scheme. I imagine the challenges are far from insurmountable but it will be somewhat challenging in terms of the allocation of third level places. Where there are two different streams of examination in those given years, has the SEC thoughts on how that can be surmounted?

Ms Arlene Forster

I thank the Deputy for his comments and questions. I will begin to pick up on them and then my colleagues, Mr. Slattery and Ms O'Connor, may like to come in as well.

To take the comments as a whole, the Deputy has touched on a lot of both the strengths and challenges that were identified through the senior cycle review in terms of assessment, in particular. Obviously, assessment is one of the three main areas that were identified in the review.

There is an acknowledgement in the advisory report - the Minister picked up on this - of the need and importance of additional research and of working closely with schools and the education partners in terms of examining the details of what updated assessment arrangements might look like.

Regarding teacher assessment and whether other forms of assessment could fulfil that role, one of the findings of the senior cycle review – it is clearly set out in the advisory report – was the importance of looking at broadening the range of assessment approaches and methods. One of the key reasons for doing this is to assess a much broader range of the knowledge, skills, values and dispositions that we deem important for our young people and, in doing so, reduce the emphasis on the written examination. Internationally, different systems put different assessment arrangements in place, but there are common characteristics across many jurisdictions. One of those is a move towards teacher-based assessment. One of the rationales used in many jurisdictions that introduced teacher assessment was the emphasis on greater validity, or in other words, putting assessment arrangements in place that can better capture the range of learning and experiences that we deem important for our young people and, in doing so, give young people opportunities to demonstrate their learning in different ways.

A point that is often made by authorities in the assessment field – the committee has met some of them during its deliberations in recent months – is that it is important that, when broadening assessment arrangements, the additional assessment components that are introduced do not necessarily emphasise the paper and pencil format. They need to look to other methodologies. The Deputy asked about practicals for a young person to demonstrate particular skills or techniques in a discipline. That is one of the reasons that teacher assessment is sometimes used in other jurisdictions, in that it opens up different methods and forms of assessment. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, though, the details of all of this need to be worked out. We need to draw on research and work with schools to see what is manageable and feasible and what supports need to be put in place to enable this approach in our school system.

Mr. Barry Slattery

The Deputy asked what would be possible in terms of a move to more components in fifth year. There was nothing in the announcement to suggest that it would be happening in the short term, but it would be subject specific and subject to further research. There is nothing to rule it in or out, but the impact of the assessments' timing would be subject specific, by which I mean it would depend on the knowledge and skills that were being assessed and the extent to which they would be developed in the first year of study.

Ms Andrea Feeney

There was a specific question for the SEC regarding the network schools and the two streams in a different year. We have previous experience of this. Within Project Maths when maths was introduced at senior cycle, it was done in that way. It was rolled out to network schools initially and then into all schools. In that example, the subject was the same. We have recently been using network schools for new subjects like physical education and computer science and will do the same with climate action and drama, film and theatre studies. We have experience of both – for an existing subject, as in the case of Project Maths, and for new subjects like physical education and computer science.

I thank the witnesses.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. When officials from the Department of Education appeared before us a number of months ago, I asked them what the main difference was between the time I did the leaving certificate in 1994 and the leaving certificate now. The suggestion from the Department was that it was not different in any radical way. At its inception, the leaving certificate was a qualification with which one went into the world. Now, it is a qualification with which one goes on to the next stage of education. There is a different dynamic that goes with it now.

Indeed, when we were trying to reform the junior certificate we had that same kind of view that young people do not go into the world with their junior certificates as they might have done with their intermediate certificates back in the day. This is the question I really have for the witnesses. We are trying to reform something that everybody or most people accept needs to be radically reformed. There is a level trust with the leaving certificate, however, and we must be careful about how we tinker with that. People feel that it is transparent; I would not use the word "fair". It is incredibly brutal.

We have come to the stage now where people who do it successfully become good at doing leaving certificates. There is an industry built around it. We must be honest about that. There are grind schools and people who are willing to sell notes. There is a whole industry built around getting one's child or a young person through this system. Parents are able to buy or use those extra resources. There is, therefore, fundamentally an inequality at the heart of the leaving certificate.

Not every school is the same and not every school can offer the same options. Not every school can offer higher level Irish, English and mathematics and basic core subjects such as those. How do we come to a scenario, therefore, where if we are going to assess people, we are assessing them fairly? How do we ensure that every student has the opportunity to study whatever subject he or she feels best fits his or her skill set and can study it at whatever level he or she feels they can? How unfair is it to have a second-level school that does not offer honours or higher level Irish thereby restricting that young person from ever being a primary school teacher, for example? Those schools exist. I remember once being a secondary school substitute teacher. I came across a young woman who was teaching herself higher level mathematics in a room by herself because there was no higher level maths teacher in the school. The level of determination that young woman went through to do and study that is unthinkable in a more middle-class advantaged scenario.

This is my general point. What kind of discussion is going on as to how to level out that inequality to ensure that every student, no matter what school he or she goes to, can through remote learning or any other way avail of every single possibility or level of subjects he or she can? Yes, we may have a transparent leaving certificate but it does not have the brutality and inequality attached to it.

I will touch on when Deputy Ó Laoghaire and I attended the teacher conferences. There was a sense of resistance to this idea of assessing one's own students from the conferences we attended. If we are going to reform then we must reform. I cannot pretend that the teacher unions have ever been friends of reform when it comes to examination structures in Ireland. I bear the wounds of the junior certificate reform process in that regard. We have to bring people with us whatever our opinions. They are my two main points. How do we make it fairer than just being transparent? How do we bring people with us?

Ms Andrea Feeney

I cannot address the broader system issue in relation to the level of advantage that various schools have but I can address it from the examinations perspective and what the SEC does to recognise that inequity is there. When we are assessing examinations we are looking at issues of fairness, particularly when it comes to the second and third components of assessment. Within subjects that have a coursework element, therefore, be it a portfolio, an oral or aural examination or a project or artefact that a student has to make, there are particular conditions attached to how he or she undertakes that work. It must be in school and under the supervision of the teacher. We very much recognise that if those conditions are not there, it presents opportunities for students who are more advantaged outside of the school to use and have more resources at their disposal than others who come from less privileged backgrounds.

I remember the early days of Covid-19 when we were looking at the arrangements we could put in place for students outside school to be able to complete their work in the various subjects. This was before the decision was taken to cancel the examinations that year. That was a real cause of concern for the State Examinations Commission. If we did not have those conditions of authentication and completion, then we were allowing the opportunity of the level of resource that students had to be brought to bear in the examination context.

I do not claim it is a perfect system; if it was a perfect system, we might not be here having the conversation about reform but the SEC does recognise there is a need to try to level the playing pitch. We do that within the examinations context by having very strong authentication procedures, that is, procedures for the integrity of the process. It does not address the broader question but within the senior cycle reform process, those issues have been brought to bear. A broader piece of work about which colleagues in the Department are exercised is how to address disadvantage within schools but that is not within my remit in discussing this issue.

Ms Arlene Forster

I will build on Ms Feeney's comments from a curriculum perspective. The Deputy touched on something that was a very prominent theme throughout the review of the senior cycle, which focused on how can a redeveloped senior cycle support all students more equitably? That is very much echoed in the three main areas I drew attention to in our opening statement. Of those three areas, I draw particular attention to the area of pathways and flexibility. That was identified as being one of the key levers in ensuring that a redeveloped senior cycle would much better meet the needs of all young people who enter into the senior cycle stage of their education and by that opening up of different pathways and routes through senior cycle. For example, one action we identified coming out of the review was the importance of having much greater choice for young people in the type of programme they would experience as part of the senior cycle. Part of that would include auditing current provision across our programmes with an eye to finding ways to provide greater opportunity for young people in technical and professional learning and learning in the creative area. That is with a view to leaving young people in a much better position to transition into whatever path they choose to follow, whether that is straight into apprenticeships, further or higher education or directly into the world of work.

Another area that the advisory report highlights holds great potential for the Deputy's question about access for young people to the range of subjects that even currently makes up the senior cycle. It is about exploring the power of technology and the possibility perhaps of a combination of online learning but also of blended learning. We have some experience in our system that we can draw on. For instance, island schools have some provision for people to access some of the science subjects by using technology. Consequently, we have small amounts of experience that we can draw on. In the advisory report, we flag up the potential of technology to really contribute to access and in particular to ensure that students can be supported more equitably.

Working directly with schools is important. In the advisory report, we really emphasised our clear commitment to continuing to working very closely with schools in all of the work in the redevelopment of the senior cycle. When we talk about more flexibility and choice and different pathways through the senior cycle, it will be really important that we work closely with schools to look in real terms at what works, what are the challenges and how we work around them. We have committed to do that. One of the ambitions has the area of equity particularly in mind. There is lots of potential there but we have a lot of work still to do to work out the detail. We see a number of those areas as offering huge potential to address equity.

I thank our guests for attending the committee. My first question is for Ms Forster. The committee's purpose is to produce a report that will outline what we recommend as senior cycle reform, taking into account the expert evidence that we hear. In doing that we need to have an accurate assessment of the benefits of the leaving certificate as it is at present. Briefly, what are the benefits of the leaving certificate as it exists at present? A lot of the time, we talk necessarily negatively about it.

Ms Arlene Forster

I will go straight into the advisory report.

Throughout all four years of the senior cycle review one prominent theme, in addition to those I mentioned already, was the ambition to conserve what is really good, what works well and the strengths, alongside ongoing evolution. Many strengths were identified through the review, including the range of subjects and modules that are already in existence and the opportunities they present to young people, as well as the range of assessment approaches and methods in particular during transition year, the leaving certificate applied, and the leaving certificate vocational programme. There is rich practice in those programmes. Some of the other strengths referenced were the addition in more recent years of additional assessment components and the opportunities those present to young people to demonstrate a greater range of learning.

Transition year received huge positivity and support throughout the review. What was highlighted in particular were the unique opportunities transition year opens up for young people's learning without the pressure of a State exam. The school-based dimension of transition year was highlighted again and again.

Many strengths were identified, but I will call on Ms O'Connor and Mr. Slattery if there were additional strengths they may want to highlight.

Mr. Barry Slattery

The only thing Ms Forster left out in regard to the review, was the emphasis on students, teachers and parents placing a high level of trust in the system but also in schools and teachers, and the value students placed on the relationship they had with teachers in their schools. That brings me to the point about the high retention rate we have. It is something we probably take for granted but when people from outside the country look at our data, they always ask how we manage to keep so many young people in education.

We do particularly well in comparison to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Barry Slattery

We do internationally, in the context of all jurisdictions. I know that is not specific to the leaving certificate but it is something we heard throughout the review process and it is important to note.

A number of witnesses have come before us and identified the main problem with the leaving certificate is that it is exclusively seen and used as a means to access third level institutions. Some of them have suggested that we should try to decouple the leaving certificate and the points race from admission to third level institutions. Does Ms. Feeney think the committee should consider this or does she think it would be potentially dangerous?

Ms Andrea Feeney

Before responding to the notion that it is just about progression, I appreciate that the leaving certificate is used for higher education, but from our perspective, it is a measure of attainment and we value the performance of all students regardless of what they want to do next. They are treated the same way within the process. We have been asked over time to translate the results when they come out into points and we have refused to do that because we do not want it to be seen as the tool of progression to higher education. We recognise that students use it for apprenticeships, to go on to work, and for further education. The uses are valued regardless of what the student wants to do next.

In terms of the decoupling, there was matriculation back in the day. We talk about the stress and pressure on students currently so I wonder, in the decoupling space, what are we talking about replacing it with? If there were to be another type of examination or assessment that students had to do in order to progress, that would exacerbate the stress and pressure on those students. Therefore, we need to be careful about what we replace it with. There are jurisdictions that have slightly similar systems to us. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, UCAS, is looking at reviewing its system and trying to even out some of the inequities. I am not sure that there is a perfect system. We would need to be very careful in this particular area. I appreciate and acknowledge that it creates stress on students, but who is to say that what we replace it with would not equally do that.

At least there is some certainty with the leaving certificate. If one looks to the United States or other jurisdictions, when it comes to admission to third level institutions, each institution can formulate its own admission practices.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Even in the UCAS system, they are looking to get rid of the personal statement for that reason because of the assistance students may get. There is a fairness associated with the leaving certificate that is certainly valued. Going back to the strengths, the review process recognised the public trust and confidence in the fairness and integrity of the process.

One of the legitimate criticisms that is made of the leaving certificate is that many students engage in rote learning in respect of certain subjects, such as English or history, whereas it is hard to engage in rote learning in other subjects such as in maths because it assesses one's capacity and ability to do mathematical questions.

How can we overcome or get around the issue of students rote learning answers?

Ms Andrea Feeney

That is a broader question related to teaching and learning, not just to examination, and again it goes back to the stakes. When the stakes are high-----

I apologise for interrupting, but is there no way the assessment method could ensure the student would not just engage in rote learning in advance of being assessed?

Ms Andrea Feeney

The SEC commissioned some research from Oxford University in 2018 regarding predictability in the leaving certificate. The term "rote learning" is bandied around, as is "teaching to the test", but we have some evidence that demonstrates the leaving certificate, in certain subjects in particular, is excellent at assessing higher order skills such as creativity, that is, 21st century skills. Oxford University published the research to that effect at that time. Nevertheless, knowledge is the foundation of learning, so there is a foundation to be built on in the context of assessment. I might hand over to my colleague Ms Sheridan, our head of examinations and assessment, to talk a bit more about that.

Ms Elaine Sheridan

The findings of the predictability research disproved the idea that rote learning was rampant throughout the exams. That was particularly true in the case of any of the less content-based specifications that were introduced in the mid-2000s. As a result of those specifications, the exams aim to analyse, assess and reward critical thinking. Even in the likes of English, a subject the Deputy mentioned, the predictability report suggested, having reviewed the papers, scripts and marking scheme, that candidates were being rewarded for higher order thinking and not for producing stock answers. To a certain extent, there is a sense this is the case. Our marking schemes are set out in such a way that marks are awarded for originality. The approach to marking in various subjects ensures marks are set aside for creative and original answers. That has been addressed through new specifications, and working closely with the NCCA on the design and development of new specifications has ensured rote learning approach is no longer really an issue.

That is interesting. We talk about the stress the leaving certificate puts on students, and we all have to play a role in that - not just the political system and Irish culture but also the media. Do we overhype it as an event in the Irish summer cycle? It is like a summer school, with additional pages in the newspapers given to the issue. Is that common in other jurisdictions?

Ms Arlene Forster

No. The Oxford research we published contained a section on the media interest, and I think there were only two other jurisdictions - Egypt and New York, as I recall - where there was a higher level of media coverage of examinations. We are quite unusual-----

Why does Ms Forster think that is the case in Ireland?

Ms Arlene Forster

There are probably others whom the Deputy might need to ask. We would like there to be a moratorium if that were possible.

Does it add to the pressure on students when the leaving certificate is elevated in the public mind to being such an important annual event?

Ms Arlene Forster

Undoubtedly. I am sure it is not the only source of pressure but it certainly contributes to it. Moreover, it tends to be parents who read the coverage. It is not an issue over which we have much control, but I think it does increase the stress on students.

In fairness to the media, I do not think there is any intention to impose stress on students, but it has become so culturally embedded in the Irish calendar and society that it is a huge event in people's lives and is regarded as a significant annual event here. Is there anything we as Oireachtas Members could do to make it less stressful, or will it always be the case that the examination of students at the end of the senior cycle is stressful?

Mr. Barry Slattery

Much of it is to do with the stakes, although it is very difficult to change culture. I agree with Ms Feeney that we need to be very careful about the CAO system and what could replace it because there could be nasty unintended consequences. Nevertheless, we heard throughout the review that whatever redevelopments in the senior cycle are to take place, in parallel with diversifying pathways, introducing new curriculum components and broadening the assessment arrangements, we will also need to consider the transition arrangements, in particular for students progressing from post-primary to higher education.

All of us have a role to play in all of our discussions. Even today, the emphasis is very much on talking about equity, meaning equity of access to higher education. There are so many other issues relating to equity. This is not a critisicism of anybody here but what was never mentioned was there are students in junior cycle who are following level 1 and level 2 learning programmes. They do not even have access to a senior cycle programme, as we speak. One of the things we are going to prioritise in the review is developing a follow-on programme for students who are currently following level 1 and level 2. In all of our discourse it needs to be about more than progression to higher education and looking at diversifying pathways as well.

When Mr. Slattery says high stakes, is he talking about it being seen as determining the future career path of a young person?

Mr. Barry Slattery

Yes. My eldest son is in transition year. He is beginning to move into that space where people are talking about it. The conversations he will have with his friends, which I am sure others who have kids the same age will be familiar with, are all about what courses and what colleges.

Mr. Barry Slattery

It is almost like there are not other pathways. I raise awareness of it but it is all around him. It is something we all have a role to play in.

I suppose the reason people previously before this committee recommended trying to decouple it is to try to-----

Ms Arlene Forster

Reduce the stakes.

-----reduce those stakes. That is the purpose and one can see the logic behind recommending decoupling leaving certificate results from admission to third level.

Mr. Barry Slattery

Yes. In other jurisdictions they have, for different reasons. I am familiar with one jurisdiction where it was decoupled but it was not a deliberate decision. It was universally decided they were going to go with their own admissions policy and they developed a kind of matriculation examination. The obvious consequence of it was increased stress because students were now focused on studying two curriculums. I did not hear the most recent update on it but they were finding the in-school curriculum, that is, the national curriculum, was getting less attention because the stakes were all about progression to university so students were focusing on the curriculum for matriculation.

Ms Evelyn O'Connor

I might add one thing, if the Deputy does not mind.

Ms Evelyn O'Connor

One of the things that was most positive about the whole process of reviewing senior cycle was how clear-sighted people were about what they wanted senior cycle to be about. It is easy to gloss over it but people were very clear. The teachers, students and parents took issue with this funnel, this narrowing and this singular perspective. When we worked with them, heard their voices and worked with a range of schools they were saying these are people and we want to develop the whole person; we want to help them to be more enriched by and engaged in their learning; we want them to be able to access whatever future they see for themselves; and we want to support them to see many options, not just one track; and that education serves collective and not just individual purposes. That was great to see because people in our education system are clear-sighted about what they would like to see improved. It is a great starting point to have an agreed purpose and vision of where we go from here.

I think everyone on this committee agrees with Ms O'Connor that is the kind of shared vision we want. Unfortunately, something has developed that is not allowing that vision to manifest itself. It is just seen as a hierarchical system where the successful ones are at the top of the points level. It is not viewed in terms of achievement and broadening the educational attainment of a student per se, outside the points setting.

Since the Chairman is not stopping me - it is very dangerous for a politician to have a lot of time - I will turn to Ms Feeney. I welcome that there is a proposal that in respect of languages we are going to have a greater focus on the oral examination. I think there is to be further emphasis on it. Both bodies have done a good job amid the difficulties Covid has caused for us all but I am conscious that during the Irish oral examinations over Easter we had 50,000 students and the vast majority of them were able to do their orals. However, there was a segment of 500 who were not. I am aware both bodies fully appreciate that is a very stressful event for those students but if it was the case that, for example, a written exam was to be postponed for a month, there would be national outrage about it.

This is not a criticism of the SEC by the way. What can we do in the future to ensure that if there is some difficulty in conducting oral examinations they can be conducted fairly rapidly after that difficulty? The students have prepared themselves heavily in advance of the examinations. Many parents and students in my constituency were affected by it and contacted me.

Ms Andrea Feeney

We changed the timing of the orals this year to the Easter holidays. That was done because of Covid and as a response to the level of disruption and interruption students had already faced in their learning this year. What happens when the oral examinations are on in a normal year is that the students' teachers are away. If their teachers are engaging in the orals in other schools, they are away from their sixth year classes. This can be challenging and difficult for the teachers and students involved. The decision was taken this year to move the oral examinations to the Easter holidays in order to mitigate any potential for further disruption to learning. We had to make sure that we had enough examiners to move it to the Easter holidays and we had to provide for sufficient reserves because of expected attrition due to Covid. Covid has had an impact on all aspects of society and it impacted on the delivery of these examinations so we ended up with a final total of 600 students in 14 schools who were not able to take their oral examinations at Easter. We will facilitate those students as soon as we possibly can.

Part of the announcement was that students and teachers would get a break over Easter. In moving the orals to the first week of the Easter holidays, there was a sense that in the second week they would still have their break so we allowed that break to happen. We had also notified schools in advance that there would be a period for late orals. Those late orals are there in a normal year to facilitate students who become ill at examination time. We set aside that period, commencing on 4 May, for the late orals this year in order to provide for students who became ill and also in the event that we would have to reschedule because of attrition due to Covid. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts to ensure that we had enough examiners to undertake the tests in the initial window, we had attrition due to Covid. We made every effort to organise the tests for those students who were affected by it and we are arranging them at the earliest possible opportunity, which is that period commencing next week. There had been a criticism to the effect that we should have had them last week. The reason I have mentioned in this regard is that the break needed to be there for students. It has also been suggested that we should have had them this week. In having the capacity we need, we are also being conscious of not impacting further on teaching and learning times. As a result, we are using retired examiners and teachers who are not in schools in order to ensure that capacity. They are not available to us all of the time so by having the date set aside commencing on 4 May, we have capacity in the system to do it. We provided that date in order to bring a level of certainty. I appreciate that it is not ideal for the students concerned, but that certainty was there.

The bigger question the Deputy asked was on how we protect ourselves from these interruptions and issues into the future. Going back to the senior cycle reform process and the interruption of Covid over the past two years, we have seen that if we had a type of assessment system or senior cycle programme where there is more dispersed assessment, it might give us greater capacity to cope with emergency situations as and when they arise. That is a long answer to the Deputy's short question, but it is important to give the detail.

I know, and I appreciate the answer. The objective in the future should be to recognise that if an examination date is given, then students are prepared for that. If we are trying to ensure that we are cutting down on stress, then that scenario would be stressful for a student. Sometimes we overinflate other types of stress. It would, however, be stressful if an examination was due to happen on a particular day and people were then told one or two days before that it is not going to go ahead. I hear Ms Feeney's answer. I understand why there would has to be a back-up plan for circumstances where students become ill or if there are bereavements and where they have to take the examinations later. When it comes to attrition as a result of an examiner not being available, however, we should try to ensure that we can provide for that closer to the time.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Of course. We had additional capacity in the system. Because of Covid, the numbers were further reduced. Ideally, in another year we would have had the people we needed to be in place.

The Deputy's other question was about what will happen in the summer. The Minister has already announced that alternative examinations and a deferred examination series are happening after the main set of examinations for students who are bereaved or become seriously ill or to cover circumstances that arise due to Covid. Again, this will be based on public health advice. We are working through the development of that scheme.

Does the Chair want me to keep talking?

Before I move to Senator Flynn, I want to follow on from Deputy O'Callaghan's questions about the oral examinations. It is the politicians who get it in the neck because of the cancellations. We are the first people to whom others come to complain. It is extremely pressurising for the families affected. I accept the answer that was given but I do not accept the explanation because the cancellation should have been flagged at least a week in advance and not the day before. It was disappointing for any student affected. The past two years have been upsetting for students. Students have come before this committee to talk about the effects the pandemic has had on them. The effects were enormous on them and their tuition. It was upsetting and distressing for the students and their families to receive a message the day before their oral examinations were scheduled to tell them the examinations were to be postponed until a later date. I want to mark that. I do not need our guests to go over that again but I want to put that point on the record. I said I would raise that issue with our guests. Perhaps in future more thought will be put into considering the effects on students.

I believe our national broadcaster, RTÉ, other national radio outlets and our print media are reckless in some of their coverage coming up to the leaving certificate examinations. I did my leaving certificate in 1992 and I was not involved in the points system. All I wanted was to go to agricultural college and I was able to achieve that. Most of our guests did their leaving certificates in the 1990s or earlier. There is considerable stress for students who are involved in the points system now. I have three kids and I am dreading the two years approaching the leaving certificate because of the points race. There is a notion that one is not sexy anymore if one is not going to third level institutions. Colleges are not good enough anymore; one must attend university, with the points race that involves. Apprenticeships and everything else have been forgotten about. I must commend the Minister, Deputy Harris, on his work to encourage students to undertake apprenticeships and the associated CAO system.

I know some of our guests have mentioned a moratorium of the sort that applies for elections whereby the media are not allowed to cover an election for the preceding 24 hours. Students are receiving one message from their teachers and are often receiving another message from their parents. The messages from the media come in on top of that. Not alone are the media driving the students mad, they are also driving the parents mad. Those parents in turn go on to drive the students mad. I am glad our guests have said they would like something done about it. What can be done? It is not their job to make that decision but I presume they have discussed the issue. I have no doubt the issue came up as part of the review. I am interested in hearing the views of the representatives of both organisations on this matter and what they would like politicians to do. Is there something the politicians can do? Have our guests spoken to our national broadcaster about the matter? RTÉ is getting taxpayers' money and is acting irresponsibly in some of its coverage. I am interested in our guests' views and whether they have had any conversation with the media on the issue.

Ms Arlene Forster

Reflecting on the comments and observations of the Chairman, many of the issues go back to how embedded the leaving certificate is in our culture and Irish society, as we touched on earlier. One of the other things that struck me as the Chairman was sharing his comments and questions was the value we place on the different programmes that currently make up senior cycle provision.

This theme emerged in the review itself. Review participants spoke about the real challenge in terms of achieving parity of esteem regarding the programmes we already have. In particular, they referenced the leaving certificate applied and leaving certificate vocational programme. As we know, 95% of young people take the leaving certificate established. The Chairman has already touched on the extent to which we see that in terms of a pathway or an entry into higher education and university. I believe some of it is about the values that we hold as a society. They are hard to challenge but we need to find a way to challenge them. From the NCCA's perspective, the senior cycle review advisory report sets out and really highlights the importance of looking at more pathways for young people and as part of that, of working as best we can to value those different pathways in order that young people see them as viable options, are given the space to think hard about what is the pathway and route they want to follow and what are their own career ambitions and aspirations. There is an absolute commitment in our review report for the redevelopment of the senior cycle to really open up those discussions and get into detailed work with schools about trying to build more flexibility and pathways into senior cycle provision itself.

I want to pick up on something else that is relevant to the points the Chairman has made and on which Deputy Jim O'Callaghan touched a little while ago. I refer to the relationship between the leaving certificate, in particular leaving certificate results, and the CAO system. Ms Feeney has spoken about this and on the question about decoupling and the challenges that can raise as well. Interestingly, in the review of the senior cycle, because as one would expect, this was part of the discussions, there was a resignation, albeit a reluctant one by some participants in the review, that such decoupling would raise its own set of difficulties and challenges. There was also an acceptance that as we redevelop the senior cycle, that relationship will need to continue to exist to some extent. However, as the senior cycle review advisory report emphasises the importance of a review of the CAO system and of the CAO system taking account of a redeveloped senior cycle, therein might lie some potential for trying to engender and encourage a value of the different pathways that a young person could follow as part of a redeveloped senior cycle.

On the specific question on whether we have had direct engagement with the national broadcaster and media on the coverage, in particular in the June period, we have not had direct engagement to date. Certainly the piece that he referenced about the intense focus on the coverage in the media in the June examination period, did feature as part of our discussions but to date, we have not had follow-up directly with the broadcaster on that.

Would the NCCA welcome dialogue with media outlets and the national broadcaster on the issues that were raised in the review? I ask because such an exchange might help them. The media and the national broadcaster looks at listenership figures. They are interested but they do not look at the pressure cooker atmosphere that is in the homes of the students and parents. I have no doubt that the pressure cooker atmosphere was part of the review and conversation that the NCCA had in the review.

Ms Arlene Forster

Yes. We have a relationship. To clarify, we do engage with the media on particular pieces of work.

I understand that.

Ms Arlene Forster

Yes, we would be open to that.

The media play a very important role around the leaving certificate in terms of communicating the message. The past two years have been very difficult for leaving certificate students on top of the intensity of the media.

Ms Andrea Feeney

It is an interesting one, even over the last two years. I agree with Ms Forster that the media coverage on the senior cycle, and the leaving certificate in particular, is a symptom and not a cause.

Ms Andrea Feeney

The media coverage reflects broader societal imperatives and perhaps contributes to or reflects the stress that is there in any event.

Over the past two years, there has been a huge amount of coverage on the leaving certificate because of the extraordinary circumstances, namely, Covid and the change. However, over the past two years, there has been no coverage of high achievers in August. In 2020 and 2021, there were no photographs on the front pages saying this is the student who got nine or eight A1s. It did not happen in either of the past two years. That is a change, because prior to that, it was part of the firmament that in August, there would be a picture of the students who got the highest results in the country. That has not happened in the past two years. It is healthy-----

Absolutely.

Ms Andrea Feeney

-----that happened and it should continue to be the case. That change has been there.

Both organisations, the SEC and the NCCA, have very good relationships with communications media and recognise that as public servants, in terms of accountability, they are part of the work that we do and they are there to hold us to account in what we are doing. As the senior cycle changes over time, the media interest will change as well. As we stop having this final examination event at the end on which a lot – not everything – is hinged, the dynamic will change because there will not be that kind of pinpoint event during the year that we can point to and say it is all happening now. This is because over time, much of it will have happened in advance of that. Some changes have happened already and we hope to see more change as the senior cycle reform rolls out.

On the pressures we have spoken about, absolutely every witness who has appeared before us over the past two or three months to talk about leaving certificate reform has spoken about the pressure on students over the two years, that is, the fifth and sixth years, but especially from the time of the mock examinations right through until the last examination that they do. Part of that is the national coverage of all of this and the points system as well. There have been so many different issues.

Before calling on Senator Pauline O’Reilly, I note several stakeholders have expressed serious concerns regarding the lack of specifications in the revised curriculum. Does the NCCA have plans to review the new syllabi and to include more specifications to ensure all students are taught equally to the highest professional standards?

Mr. Barry Slattery

I can take that. This is a curriculum debate that is not unique to Ireland.

Yes, okay.

Mr. Barry Slattery

Oddly enough, even as early as yesterday, we received an update from a colleague who had returned from a meeting in Brussels. Our colleagues in the curriculum agency in Belgium have found themselves subject to a legal challenge in their constitutional courts. The basis of it is that there is over-prescription of learning outcomes and it negates the Belgian educators’ rights to curriculum freedom. At the same meeting, colleagues from the Netherlands expressed the dilemma that they were in, which is a reverse issue - albeit not necessarily a legal one - where they are coming under increasing pressure to address the learning outcomes that are regarded as too broad. There are different perspectives. It is fair to say that different people understand curriculum in different ways. Some see it as an official text that will be faithfully implemented and received in schools and prefer a very highly prescriptive curriculum, whereas others see it is as something that is more dynamic and prefer a more, let us say, permissive curriculum that has less emphasis on specifying every single piece of content and more attention on the development of skills, for example. I will not come down on the side of either perspective but the irony is that both perspectives are premised on the same assumption, namely, the national curriculum, be it a permissive or prescriptive curriculum, will be implemented in schools exactly as intended. However, the reality is that teachers are not passive conduits who deliver somebody else’s curriculum. They will be translating and mediating the curriculum within their own context to meet the needs and interests of their students. Both perspectives underplay the complexities of this reality of the social practice of curriculum and the curriculum-making that happens in schools.

I will get to the answer now with two points.

The strength of the network-based school approach to the redevelopment of the senior cycle is that it will give us the opportunity to work with teachers in a way that will allow us to look at the exact nature and form of the curriculum, the resources, the supports, the professional development and the professional time that is required for teachers to work with the curriculum in the best possible way to deliver the best possible outcomes for their students. Absolutely, we intend to conduct additional research and consult with teachers on those issues even before we engage with schools. I wish it was as simple as conducting research that says this is exactly the way it should be and that it would solve all problems. We have seen this issue in other jurisdictions. That issue came up only as recently as yesterday, but I have been hearing about the same issues in other jurisdictions for more than ten years.

Some stakeholders have suggested that continuous assessment may also be stressful. As we all know, any formal exam is stressful. We all think that continuous assessment will be the be-all and end-all. I personally am very supportive of it but other people who have appeared before the committee may not be as in favour of continuous assessment. They have said it will still be a very stressful time for students and that the term "continuous assessment" has negative connotations. Do the NCCA and the SEC plan to address this issue? Would modularisation, whereby several assignments are completed in the school for each subject with a wide range of topics, be a better option? Would it better prepare students for further and higher education and, indeed, the workplace? As the witnesses know, further and higher education now have gone towards the continuous assessment format. In other words, would it give them better skills for what they will do in future?

Ms Arlene Forster

One point I would make at the outset in response to that is we need to be very clear about what we want to achieve for our young people. Ms O'Connor spoke earlier about the consensus that we arrived at around the purpose of a redeveloped senior cycle. Working on from that, as we get into the individual subjects, modules or units of learning, the question is what is the contribution of each of those to a young person's overall education. Once we are clear about the teaching and learning, the onus is on us to design assessment arrangements that are the best fit in terms of giving young people the opportunities to demonstrate that learning as best they can. Part of it is giving them opportunities to demonstrate learning in a number of different ways.

As for the Chairman's questions on continuous assessment, as Mr. Slattery has mentioned, this is where the work with schools becomes really important because that work enables us to ask many of the practical questions, including some of the questions the Chair has just put to us, around what the benefits might be and, equally, what the real challenges and difficulties might be with the different forms, modes and timing of assessments. Working closely with schools is a very important part of this. It is not unique to the assessment piece. It goes right across the board in terms of what we hope to do through the redevelopment of the senior cycle.

The other piece I would add is the research. Mr. Slattery mentioned the extent to which we keep our eyes and ears open to international practice and experience. That research piece will become very important for us. In the senior cycle review advisory report, we identified a number of pieces of research, some in the assessment space, that will become critical for us as we move into the next stage of the work, which involves getting into more of the detail and nuances of areas such as assessment.

We need to put all those pieces in place to be able to take some of those practical questions and work them out in partnership with schools and education partners.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I will hand over to my colleague in a moment but what we currently have in the system should be borne in mind, in that there are subjects with additional components of assessment. There is no doubt but that students going into those final exams in those subjects will say that they have banked some marks, so it takes some of the pressure off. What we need to be careful about, if introducing components of assessments in all subjects, is how we time and schedule them so there is not a constant feeling of stress on students throughout the senior cycle programme.

I ask my colleague Ms Sheridan to elaborate.

Ms Elaine Sheridan

It is building on what Ms Forster has said. Again, going back to the recent announcement and the review, it is about doing research. It is learning from others and seeing what has worked in other jurisdictions and what has not. For example, the UK is moving back to linear exams and less modularisation. However, we must remember the assessment load. There are already pinch points. Of the 41 leaving certificate subjects, 27 currently have an additional component on top of the written exam, so depending on which subjects you choose for your leaving certificate you may already have extra coursework there. If you are choosing seven subjects and all of them have an additional component there is a certain amount of load and there are pinch points. Broadening it and the types and modes of assessment is therefore very important but that is back to the research. It is back first of all to seeing what happens elsewhere.

Again, agreeing with Ms Forster and NCCA colleagues it is hugely important to look at how this manifests itself in the school environment. Having been a teacher myself, you look at your own particular subject but you need to be careful as there are 41 subjects and students are taking seven or eight of them. Much of this is about balancing. There is no point thinking bringing in these additional components will lighten the load in June if they cause a complete congestion point in October or November of fifth or sixth year. We must look to see what is done elsewhere and work very closely with the people who are on the ground delivering this to learn what is working for them in the school environment. That will ensure whatever changes come about are to the benefit of the students at the end of the day and not another form of stress. That is the key thing. We do not want to be solving stress by creating stress at different points.

I have very brief questions. I will let Mr. Slattery come in on the other point. In the review, did it come through that some students are very much in favour of continuous assessment, prefer it and find it much easier while others would rather have that bank at the very end? In other words, they would rather have the leaving certificate as it stands. Do the officials understand the question I am asking?

Mr. Barry Slattery

There was a very strong consensus that there was too much of a concentration at the end. I do not think there was a consensus on what the alternative should look like but the sense was there is too much of a concentration in the last three weeks, notwithstanding that depending on your subject combination you could have completed 50% or more of the coursework assessment in many of your subjects. Students were not in favour of one alternative but were certainly against the concentration they felt they were experiencing at the moment.

In addition to learning from other jurisdictions there is also much to learn from the leaving certificate applied programme that currently exists. It is a credit-based programme where the credits are allocated on the basis of different modules, so it is semesterised as it is broken into four sessions. Ms Forster mentioned the work with schools. That has flagged numerous times that one of the main directions for development in a redeveloped senior cycle is diversifying pathways. We have been asked to look at how we can break down any ring-fencing. There is also a very loud consensus from the reviews that we need to address the ring-fencing, which relates to many of the other issues we discussed earlier because it has a huge impact on parity of esteem and that has an impact on the uptake of the leaving certificate applied programme itself. There is much in that programme and as we work to break down the barriers between the various different programmes there is much opportunity there. It is really exciting.

It might be an unfair question to ask the officials but has there any been any conversation about amalgamating both bodies to pool resources? What way do they pool their resources? Do they work together in any way? Would amalgamation streamline the work they do? I just want a brief comment; I do not want to get into a long conversation on it but I am interested. It was mentioned in one of our other meetings so I said I would ask.

Ms Arlene Forster

I might comment on our structures, a Chathaoirligh, which might be helpful with respect to information.

I mentioned in the opening statement that the council is a representative organisation. Currently, it has 25 members across 18 organisations, which nominate to the council. Our colleagues in the State Examinations Commission, SEC, are part of the council. Therefore, the SEC is one of those partner organisations. The council is the decision making structure in the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA. The SEC is part of the discussions and deliberations on all decisions around curriculum and assessment advice that we ultimately share with the Minister for consideration. In addition, our council is supported by a number of other structures, which are also representative, and we have SEC colleagues as members of all those structures on the post-primary side, supporting all curriculum and assessment work for post-primary schools. We also have a standing group whereby members of the senior management teams in both organisations meet several times a year. We work in close collaboration with each other, and for obvious reasons, given the roles and remits of the two organisations.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I would agree with Ms Forster. We work collaboratively with colleagues in the NCCA. In other jurisdictions the development of curriculum and of examination and assessment is done by a single organisation. We have a different governing structure, a different statutory function and a different type of board from the NCCA. Notwithstanding that, we work hand in glove with the NCCA. As its role relates to policy advice and our role relates to implementation, there must be that feedback loop between implementation and policy. We are involved with the NCCA, not only at council level on the junior cycle and senor cycle boards but also the individual subject development groups. My colleague, Ms Sheridan, and all her examination and assessment managers, who are subject experts, are involved in the development of specifications and syllabuses for their relevant subjects. There is a very close working relationship there.

I have two questions from Senator Flynn who had to leave. She stated we know the biggest consequence of the flaws of our education system is the impact of the leaving certificate on students’ well-being, anxiety and stress and oftentimes depression has become a permanent feature in senior cycle students’ leaving certificate experience. She also stated we have no choice but to reform our system. She further stated she believes there is a great opportunity, and still does, to radically reform the assessment process of leaving certificate students. She had a question for the NCCA. She asked if a representative could speak to the advisory report where the NCCA notes access and equality. For instance, she was not sure of the strategies the NCCA is employing to achieve this. Ms Forster might elaborate on that and on how much consideration has been given to students with learning disabilities even with the proposed changes. The emphasis of the current system on rote learning for students with learning disabilities had an obvious disadvantage.

Moving on to the SEC, she stated she personally supports the alternative pathways to higher education. She further stated we know there is a major inequality in the leaving certificate system with those who can afford private and additional support performing better than those from disadvantaged backgrounds who often fall through the cracks. She asked if, in the representatives' opinion, there is scope to include other pathways to education. Ms Forster might respond to the Senator's first question.

Ms Arlene Forster

I would refer to a few points I made earlier when we spoke about how a redeveloped senior cycle might support all students more equitably. When we look across the three big priority areas set out in the advisory report, which are trying to achieve greater flexibility in choice in terms of pathways for young people, and focus again on the curriculum components, expanding those and broadening then the assessment arrangements, there is great potential in each of those three areas to better meet the needs of all young people. We have touched already on a number of the particular strategies within those that hold potential for reducing stress and pressure on young people such as the particular assessment arrangements that are in place, the particular programmes we currently have and removing ultimately the ring-fencing around those programmes but also making better provision for young people in areas such as technical learning, professional learning or creative learning.

I wish to pick up on an important aspect, namely, that of provision for young people with special educational needs. This is a matter on which Mr. Slattery touched. He mentioned that one of the innovations as part of the redevelopment of junior cycle was to develop level 1 and level 2 learning programmes. They were positively received by students, their families and teachers who work with those young people. As part of the review, one of the points that has been highlighted time and again is that currently there is no follow-through for those young people. This is an important piece of work that is needed in order to ensure continuity and a pathway that is appropriate for young people. As part of the review, attention was drawn to the importance of that work beginning as quickly as possible and that there would be a strong emphasis on it being age, peer and learning-needs appropriate. That is a significant item of work that needs to be progressed quickly as part of the redevelopment of senior cycle so much so that in the advisory report we noted we were beginning a few particular pieces of work that were important to get off the ground quite quickly. Across those three big areas and that special educational needs element in particular, there is great potential to address the challenges to which Senator Flynn drew attention.

Ms Andrea Feeney

There are a few points to pick up on from Senator Flynn’s questions. We dealt with one of them earlier in the engagement with Deputy O’Callaghan on rote learning. We talked about special educational needs in the context of level 1 and level 2 learning programmes, but in the context of the examinations we provide the reasonable accommodations at certificate examinations scheme, RACE. We provide that in respect of students who have special educational needs that impact on their ability to communicate what they know and can do to an examiner. Access arrangements are put in place for these students to allow them to sit the examinations. The number of students we accommodate under the scheme each year is significant. Some 17%, or more than 20,000, students taking examinations will access some form of reasonable accommodation. The range of accommodations we provide are as complex and as extensive as the range of student needs we are trying to accommodate. It is significant in terms of the support arrangements provided in order that students can access the examinations if they have some form of special need, whether it be physical or a form of a learning difficulty.

We spoke briefly about the pathways with respect to the leaving certificate applied. One of the challenges within the system is that the leaving certificate applied is not valued. It is not appreciated. The leaving certificate applied is a wonderful programme. We spoke about having a very high rate of retention. Much of that is down to the leaving certificate applied. Students who might have left school after the junior cycle in the past will go on and complete their leaving certificate applied and their qualification is as valued as the leaving certificate. Unfortunately, the leaving certificate applied is not valued in the context of progression and students have more limited opportunities. They can use it for further education but cannot use it to go to higher education directly. They can pursue post-leaving courses but they cannot go directly to higher education. There is a challenge in having that valued. The debate and discourse on the senior cycle has been extremely helpful in shining a light on the leaving certificate applied programme and what it is doing for a cohort of young people who would have possibly left school without this final qualification were it not for that programme. We would love there to be more recognition for that programme, the wonderful work leaving certificate applied co-ordinators in schools do and the wonderful engagement by students in that programme, which they bring throughout their two years in the senior cycle programme. Those are the two issues I wanted to raise in addressing Senator Flynn’s questions.

Before I hand over to Senator O’Reilly, I must say that I concur with Ms Feeney. Mr. Slattery also spoke about the leaving certificate applied programme. It is a fantastic programme and is not given the recognition it deserves. Every student has something to offer. Students often go through a phase in their life and they could be in their early 20s before they have a light bulb moment and realise they have great potential to offer. Some of them may or may not have completed the leaving certificate applied. It is a programme the Department of Education should push more through the secondary schools.

It is a fantastic programme that has saved an awful lot of lives by retaining people in secondary education who might have gone over the edge for various reasons, such as social or domestic issues. It is often only when they are in their early 20s that a light is switched on and they realise the potential they have.

I thank our guests for their work. It sounds as though they are passionate about the area, which is important. I am coming from an outside-the-school-system perspective, so the word "curriculum" sets off something in my mind. It is quite clear we are in the middle of a new revolution. There was the industrial revolution, there has kind of been a digital revolution and we are now probably going through yet another revolution. When I was attending school, we had no mobile phones or Internet, yet that technology is now what our world revolves around and we need a new set of skills we never thought we would need.

Are our guests confident we can build in that flexibility, independence of thought and self-belief? Of course, we need to talk about the curriculum because it is practical, but the word "curriculum" means something different from what it meant in the past. It is important to highlight that for people at the outset.

Ms Evelyn O'Connor

It came through strongly in the review that people were saying that while, of course, there is knowledge we value and knowledge we want students to be exposed to and to engage with, there are also skills they develop that are social and emotional as much as they are cognitive and meta-cognitive. We are engaged in research with someone who is examining the area of competencies as the broad, overarching, umbrella term for the person a child becomes as a result not only of his or her wider life but also of his or her experiences within education. If we can align the experiences young people have in classrooms with the knowledge, skills, values and dispositions we are clear we want our young people to develop during their education, and if we can do so in regard to assessment as well, the answer to the Senator's question will be "Yes".

I thank Ms O'Connor for that well thought-through response. This is where the question of the linking of the CAO to the leaving certificate arises. What came through strongly in contributions from previous guests who have appeared before this committee is that that might be why it is something of an issue. Perhaps we need to lay down a blueprint for how to learn in a way that will bring people through life rather than just assessing the things they learn during their time in school. What are our guests' thoughts on having more of a mentorship role and a more respectful relationship whereby teachers would be trusted to know what the young people sitting in front of them need and require through working collaboratively? I am thinking of democratic schooling, for instance, which is not part of the Irish school system but which we have a lot to learn from. Should there be more of a partnership model?

Ms Evelyn O'Connor

As well as having a clear purpose for a redeveloped senior cycle and a vision for how that might look, we have a set of eight guiding principles, which speak very much to some of what the Senator mentioned. In the case of well-being and relationships, for example, students' experiences in schools, other educational settings and the wider society contribute directly to their overall well-being and holistic development. We call them guiding principles rather than underpinning principles because they will not be underpinning unless they are everywhere as we redevelop the senior cycle and unless everyone is using them as a compass with which to navigate.

As for the philosophical thinking regarding the purpose of the senior cycle, what was coming through in the review was many diverse perspectives, which we were then able to pull together into a coherent purpose, vision and guiding principles for a redeveloped senior cycle, without necessarily having one perspective predominate, which would-----

Absolutely, and I would not suggest otherwise. My question is whether there are opportunities when we look at the network of schools, for instance. This is the start of something that is about research and seeing what works, as I understand it. Are there opportunities to expand into some areas of learning that had not existed previously, such as alternative modes of education that might show us an alternative way? Rather than having continuous assessment, could there be an element of self-assessment whereby the challenges people want for themselves would be set with their teachers as opposed to by their teachers? Might it be of benefit if we examined bringing some of those ideas at an early stage into the network of schools?

Ms Arlene Forster

In addition to the points Ms O'Connor made, a couple of other issues strike me in the context of the Senator's questions. I am struck by the pedagogy aspect and the actual experience the young person has in partnership with his or her teacher but also with his or her peers in the room. I am thinking back to the discussions that took place during the four years of the review. One point that was made by participants in the review was that in the case of transition year, for example, or the leaving certificate applied programme, which we were talking a moment ago, as well as the experience of young people in the link modules, which make up the leaving certificate vocational programme, LCVP, really creative and innovative work is happening in our schools and it is important we acknowledge that.

From the perspective of pedagogy and the opening-up of democratic practice, part of it lies in the relationship between teaching, learning and assessment. The three have to go hand in hand. Some of it will probably involve looking again at what the assessment arrangements could be to demonstrate the learning we deem to be really important for young people. As part of that, we will open up conversations about what types of experiences young people need to have access to the types of learning we deem important, and what assessment arrangements are best placed to enable young people to demonstrate that.

It is quite complex when we get into the detail of it, but I agree that the work with schools will open opportunities for us as we begin to examine that detail. As Ms O'Connor said, for our part we always link this work back to the clear purpose that emerged for the redevelopment of the senior cycle and those eight guiding principles. We arrived at those principles through consensus during the discussions as part of the review, and they have become very important reference points for us in our work with schools.

The final issue I raise relates to apprenticeships. I have mentioned several times that I believe school in general and within every year should more closely resemble transition year. Perhaps that will be how we can engage people in future with apprenticeships because they will have more experiences that relate to the kinds of work they might do. Should that be more closely incorporated in order that they will have more experience of apprenticeships before they leave school?

Mr. Barry Slattery

I was intending to respond to the Senator's previous question but my answer applies to her final one also. A great deal of what she outlined happens in transition year in many schools, given the level of autonomy transition year affords schools. One issue that is probably not recognised sufficiently relates to the incredible creativity of schools and teachers to respond to the needs and interests of students. Because of the autonomy, it is in some ways camouflaged within the system and we are not aware of it. One step we have taken - I think it is to be published today or tomorrow - is the issuing of a call for expressions of interest from schools to get involved in a school-based review of the programme that will help us in the process of redeveloping the programme statement for transition year.

That is one of the actions that was announced by the Minister last month. It is one specific action we are taking that will hopefully uncover some of that practice.

That brings us to the point the Senator raised about transition year and apprenticeships. We concluded the review - prior to publication - it coincided with the launch of the future further education and training, FET, strategy by SOLAS. Unsurprisingly, there were huge synergies between its ambitious agenda and the actions arising from the senior cycle review. That can broadly be encompassed in the idea of looking at pathways from school to FET. This includes: looking at the learning pathways in a redeveloped senior cycle; looking links between new apprenticeship opportunities and transition year programmes; and looking at the links between FET schools and others. We established a standing committee, similar to the committee we would have with our colleagues in the SEC, with SOLAS. We have already established a working group which has members from our executive and members from SOLAS and we have brought in the education and training boards, ETBs. In that working group we are identifying where there are FET providers. This is camouflaged throughout the system and it is happening in local pockets. We have been conducting an audit of where FET providers have established strong relationships with schools to look at what modules they provide. Already many of these modules and connections appear to be happening in transition year. We are looking at the existing modules on offer, how they were created and what led to their development, and we are also looking at how we can offer them more broadly across transition year. There is a long way to go but we have started that work with SOLAS and as I said, today or tomorrow a call will go out to schools to do that audit.

I thank our guests for attending. The NCCA truly is a representative body for teachers, unions and parents and it has nominees on its board as well. The SEC is a stand-alone body that reports directly to the Minister. I see an advisory group here that is working with subject experts. From what I understand, a nominee from the SEC also sits on the NCCA. That is important. I admire the work that has been completed in a difficult time, particularly by the SEC. The SEC has done great work in the last two years, particularly for its assessors in managing and working with teaching groups to manage the continuous assessment and accredited grade system and so on that we have put in place in recent years. I was incredibly impressed with the 40 subjects that are now managed by the SEC and assessors. That is incredible. Four extra languages were added for 2022, including Mandarin Chinese and Lithuanian, which is incredible to see. I pay tribute to the broad range of subjects to accommodate new communities coming to Ireland.

I refer to the assessment along the lines of that relating to the digital side and technology. I understand that marks are added online and that is what is reviewed. That will be made available to students and there will be a portal that is transparently available to students. Would we not be moving to a system where students will be inputting their information online? When do we see that happening? What are the cybersecurity elements around that and is there a portion of budgets within the Department of Education that needs to be allocated for it? My other questions are on the timelines for assessment. Some of the concerns and challenges we had with this new system in the last two years were the timing of the assessments and the marking of results that came out. In other words, they had an impact for third level, particularly for students who were going to the UK. How will we manage that this year? With the new model of continuous assessment, how will we manage to make sure that marking happens in a timely way for third level students who wish to take up courses in Europe, the UK or elsewhere?

I mention mindfulness in an exam setting. National University of Ireland Galway has become the first university with mindfulness. We talk an awful lot about mindfulness and well-being, but where are the actions? How can we see it in an exam setting where students enter in panic mode at times?

I remember what I was like and I would be cramming until God knows what hour coming into an exam. How can we get them to switch off, detox or whatever is and suddenly calm down and engage with the exam? What sort of methods could we look at?

I thank the NCCA so much. The reports it has done in recent years and the way it has engaged at different levels and at different stages with schools and parents have been incredible and a huge mountain of work has been done there. It has led to continuous assessment, which is so important when it comes to DEIS and special needs students. There are extra courses, including drama and film, as well as climate action and looking at our current global challenges. I understand the concerns around the assessment and capacity of students but I refer to the expansion of transition year, where we are looking at apprenticeship taster courses. How many of those would the NCCA recommend? The witnesses have mentioned that the network schools pilot has been rolled out and will be launched and that network schools can apply for this. Will there be a regional mix with the schools that are being selected ? Is there a maximum number of schools where it will take place? On international practice and comparison with other countries, were there one or two elements that the witnesses saw in other countries that they think we should consider for the future? I will start with Ms Feeney and her team and then we will pass over to Ms Forster.

Before we go to the witnesses I want to point out that Deputy Ó Cathasaigh is next. I should have called him before the Senator because he was here at the start of the meeting.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I thank the Senator for her thoughtful questions. I will start with the mindfulness question because it is the quickest one to deal with from my perspective. Colleagues in the National Education Psychological Service, NEPS, are doing a huge amount of work with schools on mindfulness and well-being. The Senator asked what happens in the examination setting. Our superintendents are teachers so they are used to dealing with young people and they are used to not just dealing with the mechanics of delivering the examinations but to also engaging with young people in that setting. If a student is having a difficulty on the day, we have experienced people on hand in the examination centre and available to them in school.

On the technology issue the Senator raised, we are using a huge amount of technology and it has really stood to us over the past two years when we were able to deliver calculated and accredited grades. We were able to do so because we had built up capacity in online marking. The use of the candidate self-service portal in recent years has been phenomenal and gives students immediate access to a lot of information, not only their results but subsequently the data about the marks they got. For this year we have almost all of our leaving certificate subjects marked online and students will have access to almost all of their leaving certificate scripts online after the results come out.

Ms Andrea Feeney

That is a real development. I made the point in my opening statement that we are using a huge amount of technology in the delivery of what we do, supporting assessment but not doing the assessment, which is the question the Senator was coming at. International research has shown that there are not a huge number of high stakes examination systems that make great use of online assessment. There are practical reasons for that and it is not just the availability of computers. It includes the availability of plug points in schools. There are practical reasons the seat time is needed. If we are arranging for 120,000 students to sit an English exam in June they all have to be able to sit that exam at that time, the devices need to be there and the electricity needs to be there. The expansion of ICT in examination and assessment has been included within the senior cycle reform announcement and we have announced, together with the NCCA, that we will research and explore that. There is a recognition that this needs to be tied into the digital strategy for schools.

If we are looking to the future and if we want to prepare our children and students for that it is about having access to technology.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Yes.

I would very much see that when it comes to students and young people. I mention Microsoft schools for example, which we are seeing at national school level. We have to move on this quickly and make sure our students are prepared.

Ms Andrea Feeney

In New Zealand, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is one of the forerunners on this and it is pioneering in assessment. We have met its staff to explore what it does and it is doing it on a small scale because of those practical considerations. There are things that could be considered such as bringing your own device but that is a security issue. If a student is doing an exam and can get onto the web while doing the exam that does not do a lot for fairness and integrity. There are things we need to explore therefore, but research into that is included within the senior cycle reform.

What are the timelines for assessment?

Ms Andrea Feeney

We have not yet announced the timelines for assessment this year. The date for the results has been the end of August or early September in the past two years because of the challenges we have faced in that time. The date for the results this year will be impacted by two things. An announcement has been made to the effect that the overall profile of results will be no lower than the profile of results in 2021. That requires time for analysis so after all the marking is done, we need to do the analytics required to make sure of that. A second announcement related to deferred sittings of the examinations for students who are bereaved, seriously ill or suffering from Covid-19 and unable to take their examinations. There will be a deferred series of examinations for those students.

Can we give confidence to the students who wish to go on and take up studies in the UK that they will receive their results in a timely way this year?

Ms Andrea Feeney

In the past two years, even though the results have been delayed, those students have had their places available to them. An awful lot of work has been done behind the scenes by ourselves and the Department. The same will apply this year.

That is good to hear. I thank Ms Feeney.

Ms Arlene Forster

I thank the Senator for the points she made about the review. We appreciate it. The Senator highlighted the two new subjects the Minister has asked us to develop and on which we are beginning work. I would add that in the advisory report, there is an acknowledgement that there may very well be other subjects, modules or units we will need to develop, and we have already identified the fact that young people need more opportunities in the technical, vocational and professional areas, in particular. An audit is under way to assist us in identifying the other subjects or modules we need to consider.

We have not yet got into the detail of what the pilot network of schools will include. It is important to note, and this is characteristic of any networks with which the NCCA works, that we will ensure the network is representative of the different school contexts and the diversity of school contexts that make up, in this case, post-primary education. That will be important, given the work these network schools will be involved in. It is our experience that when we put the emphasis on that representation, it invariably gives us regional representation as well.

Does that apply outside of urban areas?

Ms Arlene Forster

It does. On international practice and in response to the Senator's question, a number of particular elements struck us that might be of particular importance to our work on the senior cycle. I will draw attention to some we have not spoken about heretofore in this meeting. One of the features we saw in our examination of international practice was greater diversification in upper secondary schools and, in particular, the fact that many jurisdictions have very clearly defined vocational pathways. There is learning there for us in redeveloping the senior cycle.

Another area that is prominent in other jurisdictions is broader reporting. We captured that in the advisory report. In Ireland, as the Senator knows, reporting very much focuses on a young person's examination results. In the discussions during the senior cycle review, time was given to thinking about the value of having broader reporting and taking account of other experiences that young people might have, including transition year and the two years leading towards the leaving certificate itself.

The review of international practice also highlighted examples of systems that encourage and support greater specialisation in terms of the subjects, modules and curriculum components a young person can choose. Alongside that, there was also a continuing emphasis on literacy and numeracy and the importance attached to them. That is reflected in our system now.

A final matter to which I would draw attention is that many other jurisdictions look to a greater diversity of learning environments for young people at particular stages of their education. For example, some systems have a greater emphasis on building partnerships with local businesses and organisations in the voluntary sector. There is also the online learning piece we have already mentioned. Those are just some of the things that came up in our review. I apologise for the speed with which I went through all of that.

Ms Forster should feel free to email the committee with any further responses. I am conscious of other committee members' time. I thank Ms Forster.

I apologise for having had to step out in the middle of the meeting. I thank our guests for their presentations. I echo some of the comments of previous speakers in thanking both the NCCA and, in particular, the SEC for the work they have done, and the quality of it, over an extremely challenging two years and under extremely pressurised circumstances.

When one contributes this late to a meeting, there is always going to be an element of repetition and that especially so in this case. I raise the issue of T1 and T2 and echo the comments made earlier by Deputy Ó Laoghaire. We have discussed the matter at this committee and we have discussed it in detail at meetings of the Comhchoiste na Gaeilge, na Gaeltachta agus Phobal Labhartha na Gaeilge, of which I am also a member. The Irish-language community has spoken with one voice on the issue. We have received very good evidence and suggestions, particularly from Maynooth University, about possible alternative approaches. That needs to be looked at again. It is something that has been raised as problematic by the Irish-language community and we should come back to that point.

Ms Forster pre-empted some of my questions by talking about the issue of broader reporting. Certainly in the leaving certificate and the senior cycle as currently constituted, it is almost as if two approaches are being taken. It says, on one hand, that it is a summative assessment of learning. However, in people's imaginations and minds' eyes, it serves as a matriculation examination for entry into third level education. It would be interesting if we could begin to separate that. As Ms Forster said, we could be considering broader reporting. For example, the leaving certificate is completely blind to how good a person is at group working, which is a useful skill people will carry into their later lives. However, teachers who emphasise group working may or may not find themselves rewarded when the leaving certificate examination results arrive. It would be interesting to look at that issue.

The issue of micro-credentialling was touched upon by Mr. Slattery when we were talking about transition year. That is something the committee has talked about in the context of third level education. I think straight away of the Teastas Eorpach na Gaeilge, TEG, or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. It would be interesting if at the end of the senior cycle, a student emerged not just with a leaving certificate result in Irish, French, Spanish and whatever else, but also with a qualification that was recognised under the common European framework. If we are talking about pathways, once somebody is located on that common European framework, they can see a way forward. I am thinking in particular of some of the provisions in the Acht teanga whereby we are moving towards a 20% recruitment target in the public sector and how it is most likely that a language level of B2 will be the standard we arrive at in that regard. However, all of this will hinge on the externally moderated school-based assessments. There has been near consensus in terms of the need to move to a more continuous assessment-based model. That is recognised in the senior cycle review. All of those moves are welcome but we must see closer and in more detail how it is we can structure this externally moderated school-based assessment. We have heard those concerns expressed by the unions. Deputy Ó Ríordáin made the distinction between whether the leaving certificate is fair or not and whether it is transparent. There is a certain level of trust in the leaving certificate and we certainly do not want to undermine that level of trust in the public eye. That retention of trust will hinge on how we structure the externally moderated school-based assessment. That will be the crux point.

Those amount more to comments than questions but our guests may wish to respond in any case.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I might start and others might respond to the questions about T1 and T2 at leaving certificate level and senior cycle. It is probably working reflecting on the fact that this is the first year of formal examination of the T1 and T2 specifications in the junior cycle even though it has been implemented for longer than that. Because we have not had formal junior cycle examinations for the past two years, this is the first cohort to come through the new specification for Gaeilge.

In relation to the reporting, we had the conversation earlier about the role of the leaving certificate, which is to measure attainment at the end of senior cycle, and it has this follow-on use, which is used for higher education. Describing it as the means of matriculation to higher education may do a disservice to those who do not want to go down that pathway.

I would not be advocating for it be matriculation; I am saying it is in the public’s eye.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Yes. That is what it does. It does a disservice because not everybody wants to go to third level or higher education. It is important that the narrative reflects that it has a broader range of purposes than just matriculation.

In terms of the externally moderated school-based assessment, we have been commissioned to research this to look at what works in other jurisdictions. I am sure Ms Forster and other colleagues will want to come in on this, and perhaps Ms Sheridan as well on this particular one. On what works in other jurisdictions, the Deputy talked about seeing it closer and more detailed. Actually, we need to see it closer and more detailed to come up with a system that will work here. I might just ask my colleague, Ms Sheridan, to share some exploration - not detail - of practice in other jurisdictions.

Ms Elaine Sheridan

It has been acknowledged a couple of times already throughout the morning but it is back again to the need to do research. Again, looking at it, it is hinging on the externally based moderation piece working for this to be successful. We all want it to be successful, because once there is a school-based assessment, it allows for greater variety and individual approaches for assessment. However, how will this moderation be structured? That is where we need to do the research because there are many different approaches to doing this. For example, it could be a stand-alone statistical approach, moderation within the schools by sampling material within and across schools or a combination of both, using a statistical approach and sampling of material and getting re-marking of it by external moderators appointed by ourselves. We need to make sure that the best blend, the hybrid or whatever approach is taken for the moderation, is the one that will work, because it is the crux of making this work and us actually trying to break the perception of the leaving certificate being the matriculation in order that the same value is put on the work of our students who are sitting the leaving certificate applied and who do not choose go to third level but choose some other pathway. It is in working collaboration with the NCCA, looking to see what happens elsewhere and seeing, discussing and researching the different approaches and combinations of such we can bring together to ensure the most successful approach in order that the senior cycle reform is a successful change for our students in the future.

Ms Evelyn O'Connor

On the draft specifications for the T1 and T2 in leaving certificate Gaeilge, I am sure it is frustrating for the same thing being said again, but we had a great deal of data to get through, such as written submissions, online surveys, one-to-one interviews with teachers, focus groups and bilateral meetings. They were giving feedback on the draft specifications of T1 and T2, on their concerns about enactment and the model of provision and those systemic questions. I know that the question of T1 and T2 looms large for many people but there is a richness of perspectives on it, much to do with the draft specifications as well as those questions. We will be bringing them to the council in the coming months for its consideration. It is not a new answer, but just to reiterate, that work is advanced at the moment.

Very good. I had the question about micro-credentialling and whether we see a potential for that. Is that something that has been looked at?

Mr. Barry Slattery

Not specifically yet. However, it is within the mix of the additional research that we need to undertake. It would certainly be something to look at. One of the colleagues that we identified who would start on that has some experience in that area as well.

I thank everyone for their contributions so far. I listened to all of it, right from the beginning, and I will try not to be repetitive. On the leaving certificate results this year - Senator Pauline O’Reilly touched on it – do we have a date for the results?

Ms Andrea Feeney

No.

When will we have a date?

Ms Andrea Feeney

Last year we had the date at the end of May.

It is normally 15 August. Can we look towards that date?

Ms Andrea Feeney

Typically, it is the middle of August when the results issue. However, again, things are different this year. We have had later results over the past two years because things were different, and things are different again this year. Therefore, we have not given a date for results at this stage.

It will be challenging because one of the things we need to ensure is that the results of the main set of examinations in June and the deferred sitting of the examination that will happen after that will be available at the same time. We do not know at this point the number of students who will sit that second set of examinations - the deferred series. There is an uncertainty as a result of that and also arising from the work that we need to do to ensure that the results this year are on aggregate and no lower than the outcomes in 2021.

The SEC will not know that information by the end of May, will it?

Ms Andrea Feeney

We will probably have a better idea. As we are moving through the weeks and months, the picture becomes clearer. Sometimes it gets more murky again when Covid is concerned. We are hoping that it will become clearer and we will be able to give more certainty on the date, but we cannot say at this point.

That would be very good. I want to acknowledge the challenges in the work that has been done in the past two years. It has been challenging for everybody, not least the SEC. The sooner people know, the better. The lack of certainty has been very difficult.

Has the SEC done a measurement of the hours of learning that have been missed over the past two years by either the teachers' or students' absences? Do we have a picture of how much has been lost out?

Ms Andrea Feeney

We certainly do not, but we can take it away and bring it back to colleagues in the Department of Education. It is information that they might have.

Okay. It is important that the SEC knows as well in terms of determining examinations, to give everybody a fair chance. I know students this year are under severe pressure. What percentage of students who do their leaving certificate go onto higher and further education?

Ms Andrea Feeney

I believe it is in the order of 60%.

Okay. For the other 40%, how many go directly into employment?

Ms Andrea Feeney

That is not information that I have to hand. I am sure it is something that we can find out.

It would be useful as well. On other data collection, do we have time series data in terms of measuring the correlation between those who have grinds and extra tuition beyond what is provided within the public system? Do we have a correlation between examination results and educational attainment?

Ms Andrea Feeney

We do not, and we do not have information about who attends grinds or grind schools. I suppose the concern the Deputy would have is that she is looking then at perhaps the form of league tables and performance related to where students are attending schools. It is not information that we gather or we have.

Is it available? I will explain why it is important. How are we supposed to address the inequalities that are here? I am very concerned about the widening inequality gap between those who can afford the grinds and the extra tuition, as opposed to those who are sitting the same examination but cannot afford any of that, and perhaps come from homes that are not conducive to them participating fully in terms of doing their homework and everything else. How are we are measuring that in order to be able to address it?

Mr. Barry Slattery

I am not sure. Do we need to measure it to know? It is quite clear that the level of inequality that the Deputy is talking about has an impact on outcome. That is why the Department has very successfully introduced the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, DEIS, scheme and has built further on it again. I am not sure of the need and if it would be possible to gather the data on every individual, and how reliable it would be to know the extent of what grinds or additional support that they have. It comes in so many other forms than just grinds. The additional supports that young people have in the home varies from household to household. The income coming into the house is a very strong-----

For sure I would measure it, because my concern is about the commodification of education. Just in terms of the affordability, we need to measure it. It is something that we need to look at and we will take up with the Department again as well. We need to be able to measure the gap as it is widening and the effect of the initiatives, such as the DEIS that Mr. Slattery mentioned, which absolutely, 100% I believe in. How are we measuring the effectiveness of that in relation to examinations and educational attainment if we do not know? This data would be extremely useful for us in decision making.

Ms Andrea Feeney

There was a study done going back a number of years in respect of that relationship. It was a third level study. It is an interesting piece of research. It is not research that the SEC would engage in because it looks at an issue that we really do not have any control over. It is also the case that in some respects the levelling is happening through the assessment process. Other things happen in the lead-up to the assessment process whereby students have access to different supports, parental supports in the home and grinds. The quality of teaching and learning can come into it as well. We are not able to measure the individual’s quality of teaching and learning. Maybe there is a reason why they are looking for additional supports. There are broader issues. There is research going back a number of years on it. We can certainly check and get back to the committee.

It is not an easy thing to measure, but it would be really useful for us to do that in terms of the decision-making around it. I have a number of questions. One of the other things is that people are concerned about the timelines. We have done so much talking about leaving certificate reform. In regard to the 40% continuous assessment, regardless of whether that will be externally moderated - which I think it will have to be or most of it anyway -when will we be at that point where it is a 60-40 split? When does the NCCA expect we will reach that point?

Ms Arlene Forster

I will begin. In regard to the Minister and the timelines that she has asked the NCCA and the SEC to work to, she has asked us to be ready to work with a network of schools in September 2024. She has identified an initial set of subjects she wants us to focus on. Those schools obviously need two years to work through those specifications. We then need the data and the feedback from teachers, students, parents and school leaders. From the Minister’s timelines, she sees 2027 as the point at which we have all of that data and feedback to enable us then to take that on board as we in the NCCA continue to work on the different specifications as modules. On a more overarching point about timelines - we see this internationally as well - there is often a perception that curriculum development, curriculum change and assessment change in Ireland are very slow. When you compare the overall timelines that we work to with those internationally, you find that they are on a par. When you look at something as complex, central and critical as senior cycle, it takes time to work through these different issues in detail, particularly in view of the fact that we give so much attention, and rightly so, to the experience of schools on the ground. That takes time. In the context of the Minister’s announcement on the timeline she has asked us to work to, 2024 and 2027 are key dates.

You can see why people would be concerned. It is because we are living in such a fast-moving external environment none of us here really know what education delivery is going to look like internationally in ten or 15 years in terms of opportunities, the position in wider society and all of that. It is just more than a perception that it is very slow. I am not sufficiently familiar with the information internationally to be able to make comparisons, but what I will say is that we need to do everything possible. If there is a certain number of subjects being looked at, what are they? It will probably be the 2030s before we see a 60-40 split. We are talking about a future generation of children here. That is the frustrating thing for everybody. What can be done to speed up the process?

Ms Arlene Forster

One of the other requests the Minister included in her response to the NCCA is that once we have that learning from our work with the network schools, we should put a programme of work in place that would see subjects being reviewed, updated and made ready for schools to work with on an annual basis. That will help in terms of shortening the timeline.

The other thing I would say in this regard is that from our perspective, it is really important to highlight that we are not waiting until the 2030s for many of these changes to be implemented and to have a real impact on the experiences of young people. We were speaking earlier about some of the immediate pieces of work that we already are starting to progress. One of those is around supporting young people who are currently in the level 1 and level 2 learning programmes in junior cycle. That work is already beginning within the NCCA and that is a really important one. Mr. Slattery and Ms O’Connor and colleagues in the SEC touched earlier on removing the ring fencing that currently exists around the programmes that we already have as part of senior cycle provision. In her response, the Minister indicated that she wants some of that in place for schools from this September. We have a transition year programme being updated and it will be available for September 2024 that Mr. Slattery has spoken to. There are many changes already afoot and changes that will be experienced very quickly by young people in the system, including those who are already in junior cycle, as part of senior cycle provision. While I accept the overall timeline is into the 2030s, there are important changes afoot in the more immediate to short term.

People need to see that. I welcome that but I have a number of other questions.

Ms Andrea Feeney

If I can just add very briefly, the number of subjects at leaving certificate at the moment that currently have additional components worth more than 40% is eight of the existing subjects. Ms Forster just made the point that it is not just waiting for the endgame.

That is eight out of 40.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Yes, eight of the 40. There are 27 subjects that have additional components and in eight of those 27 subjects, the additional components have a value of more than 40%.

If we keep measuring that as we go along, then we will be able to see progress around those but out of those 40 subjects, half of them are languages. How many of the others would the SEC classify as being technical or vocational?

Ms Andrea Feeney

Does Deputy Conway-Walsh mean the likes of construction-----

Yes, that is right.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I will do a count of them and come back to the Deputy on it if that is okay.

Yes, if Ms Feeney could. My colleague, Deputy Ó Laoghaire, referred earlier to construction studies and what is needed there and the workforce that we need there. How hard is it then to roll out a practical subject such as construction studies?

Ms Andrea Feeney

There are two very practical subjects there already, construction studies and engineering, and they both have two additional components in assessment. They have a written examination, they also have a project and what we call a day practical skills test, which is a point-in-time examination. If we look at recent examples within the junior cycle, four technical vocational subjects at junior cycle were reformed as part of junior cycle reform. The most recent reforms of new subjects at leaving certification do not meet the definition of vocational or practical but they both have a very heavy demand in regard to the non-examination assessment, that is, physical education and computer science.

I wish all the students today who are doing their practical day in engineering the best of luck, including my own son who has his 19th birthday today as well. What a way to spend your birthday, doing the practical subject.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I hope he has a happy day.

Ms Evelyn O'Connor

Can I just add that when the Minister made her announcement, the Department issued a document on what do these changes mean for people. It was a really good document. I have three girls and I was looking at it through the lens of one being in first year, one in third class and one in senior infants, so there is something there that gives you a sense of momentum and the changes over time, which was really helpful. As a parent I was looking at it as well as having my NCCA lens on things.

Has any work been done in regard to aligning the assignment and releasing the results with the A-levels in the North through our work on the increasing cross-Border enrolment in further and higher education? We have repeatedly come across challenges in relation to the examinations, the grades and the timing of results. These have been substantial barriers and they have come across time and time again in increasing access to educational opportunity on an all-island basis. Is this something the SEC has looked at throughout its work? How does it view the challenges in this area in respect of how we can tie things up a bit better there?

Ms Andrea Feeney

I think we have dealt with the results date already.

In terms of North-South, it is a real barrier there in terms of the timings of things being resolved. Has the SEC really examined that and how we can have an all-island approach to creating the opportunities across the island?

Ms Andrea Feeney

Certainly, from our perspective on cross-Border collaboration, we have a very good relationship with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, CCEA, in Northern Ireland. We have regular engagements with the executive of CCEA. I hope I have already answered the question regarding the results date. It is something we can look at in future. This year will be another outlier.

Okay. Can Ms Feeney see an alignment of the results being released throughout the island in future?

Ms Andrea Feeney

Typically, up to the time of the Covid pandemic, there was more of a close relationship between the dates for A level results and those for leaving certificate results.

Is that something the SEC will look at again?

Ms Andrea Feeney

Yes.

That might be achieved when we have a united Ireland.

That will be soon.

I am not sure about that.

I will address the issue of critical thinking. I have looked at the Oxford report, cited in several areas around the assessment of higher order thinking, which recommended that the curriculum be narrowed. How can students do seven subjects in any depth, and allow time and space for critical thinking, when we are trying to assess so many subjects? How do we have more critical thinking and problem solving when we have so many subjects?

Ms Andrea Feeney

That was looked at in the context of senior cycle reform and the basis on which we provide education at senior cycle. Consideration was given to narrowing the range of subjects in order that there would be more depth in their treatment. The consensus reached in the review process, which my colleagues in the NCCA will come in on, was that, on balance, the breadth and type of learning experience students have is actually better. It is better to have that broad base rather than narrowing it. Do my colleagues want to come in on that?

Ms Arlene Forster

It was a point that featured in the review. It is fair to say it is something we - when I say "we" I mean as a society - hold as being very important throughout our education system because we see this emphasis on a broad and balanced educational experience, right from early years, through primary and on through post-primary to the end of senior cycle. I would reference two things on the Deputy's point about critical thinking and creative thinking. In 2008, when the NCCA published the five key skills for senior cycle, all the subject specifications that were either reviewed and updated, and the new specifications that have been developed - there are new subjects as part of senior cycle provision in more recent years - all build on the five key skills of senior cycle. There is an emphasis on creative and critical thinking as part of that specification work in the past ten to 14 years. Ms O'Connor spoke about eight guiding principles that emerged from the review of senior cycle as being very important now to guide our thinking and our work as we redevelop senior cycle. As part of those eight guiding principles, there is an emphasis on that critical, creative thinking. That would very much to the fore in all the NCCA's work on curriculum specifications, whether that is to do with subjects, modules, units of work or whatever the curriculum components consist of.

Are the representatives satisfied that the marking system reflects the critical thinking that is necessary?

Ms Elaine Sheridan

To build on the point, it is very much the case that the specifications for the past ten to 15 years are less content-based and much more open to allow for critical thinking. It is becoming custom and practice in the classroom. It is like the use of group work and pair work. If we look at the examination paper for politics and society, in particular, and the marking scheme for it, we will see that students are being provided with the opportunity to critically think based on case studies in which they have specialised in the classroom. That is also the case with physical education, and even with history and geography in the mid-2000s, as those new specifications came in.

The space is there. It is not that they are doing too many subjects. It is that the newer specifications, especially those in the past ten years are less content-driven and more about providing opportunities for learning in that critical thinking space. The students attend, sit their examinations and demonstrate that level of engagement with critical thinking in the classroom in their examination scripts, because the exams provide the opportunity and the marking scheme then rewards what the candidate has produced in the script on the day.

There has been a very positive move towards that, which will be built on further and further by having the additional component at school level because that helps the students. It is about their engagement in other activities, such as the Deputy's son today. That is a six-hour exam.

Ms Elaine Sheridan

He is doing a big exam in engineering today, but the work he has done on that has complemented his work on his project. He has probably completed a project as well.

I am ready to conclude, but now I see-----

Ms Elaine Sheridan

He will then do his written exam.

We have about five minutes left. We will conclude because it is 1.30 p.m. and I conscious we have been here for two and a half hours. I thank the NCCA and SEC representatives for the very productive discussion we have had. Their exchange of views has been very helpful. We are coming to the end of our leaving certificate review and it was very important that both organisations appeared before us. There was a delay because they had to report to the Department of Education. This has been one of the most productive meetings and exchange of views. I deeply appreciate the input from witnesses and members.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.31 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 10 May 2022.
Barr
Roinn