Mr. Lewis Purser:

I thank the Chair. I will make a few general remarks and then try to respond to some of the more precise questions which the committee has raised. When we discuss the topic of assessment we have to remind ourselves of the purpose of assessment. What are we trying to do? We are trying to establish how well students have achieved the level of knowledge, skills and competences which the programme was designed to equip them with. Obviously there are multiple ways to undertake such assessment. Any form of assessment will involve some form of stress, but there are well established ways of spreading that stress over multiple methods and over periods of time. In most cases students will learn to deal with that stress and that is a quite a useful life skill to develop.

The purpose of assessment is important because if we are looking at what we want the students to have achieved as part of their programme of learning - in higher education we refer to this as the learning outcomes - and if we are explicit about what those learning outcomes should be and what outcomes are desirable, then the assessment methods need to be aligned to ensure that those learning outcomes are being achieved and to ascertain the extent of that achievement. Different methods will be useful for measuring different types of outcomes.

In Ireland we have a very robust national framework of qualifications which is very highly regarded internationally. The further education sector and higher education sector engage extensively with this and structure their programmes around it. QQI, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, conducts all its quality assurance on the basis of the national framework. I would contend that the State Examinations Commission, and the State examinations system in general, has engaged to a lesser extent with the national framework of qualifications and has been less explicit about the learning outcomes which should be achieved; about how the knowledge, skills and competences which we would like learners to have achieved at key stages in their learning careers are tested; and about the optimal way to do that. There is quite a lot of literature on that topic. There is a lot of experience in other countries and, as I have referred to, there is very good experience in the further education sector. There has also been some quite good experience in the higher education sector over the last ten years.

There was a particular query about addressing student stress and diverse types of learners. There is a considerable body of research which shows that a broader assessment base, as opposed to a very narrow assessment base at a fixed point in time, is eminently more suitable for meeting the diverse range of learning strengths and needs that we find in our high-participation system. Ireland has a very inclusive system but I am not sure that the assessment part of that system meets the needs of this very broad range of learners. The current examination model restricts the opportunities for those students, for example, who have special education needs to demonstrate their learning in the way that is best suited to their own requirements. Students who experience difficulties with aspects of literacy, memory, concentration, mobility or anxiety are immediately disadvantaged by aspects of our State examinations system. That is currently the situation.

There was also a query on how we should step towards implementation. I mentioned earlier, and I believe this is supported by a number of my colleagues on the witness bench, that some very positive change is taking place in the junior certificate but that we would be wise initially to carry through the full set of reforms involving continuous assessment at junior cycle. We need to help teachers manage the change. The junior cycle culminates in a State examination with lower stakes - the junior certificate. This will help address teachers' attitudes towards risk taking, because we are talking about moving outside comfort zones, taking a little bit more risk and being more comfortable with a broader range of assessment practices.

There is quite a limited culture of continuous assessment in our post-primary schools, at least on a formal basis. Not all subjects allow continuous assessment to count towards State certification. Some subjects use it very well, particularly some of the languages and some of the laboratory based subjects, but if compared with the way in which state examinations take place in a number of other European countries - and I do not think the United Kingdom is necessarily a good benchmark - we are certainly behind the times. If we are looking to assess the 21st century generic competences that employers increasingly call for and the need for which is recognised in society for all our learners, including those who are academically brilliant and those who are more vocationally oriented, we need to do something about the assessment method which we use.