Mr. Oisín Hassan:

In terms of the National Council for Curriculum Assessment, NCCA, a colleague and I have been involved since the launch of the review. The general feeling in the room at the launch event was there were many lessons to be learned from international perspectives on how to consult with stakeholders, students, staff and teachers. However, when the review process was outlined at the end of the day, there was also a feeling that it was not as inclusive as it should have been, especially considering the speakers who spoke earlier.

As for what steps to take, the review provides an opportunity to consider issues such as the length of time it takes to get the results of final examinations. While the junior cycle review must takes its course, steps can be considered immediately. Many final examinations amount to between 70% and 80% of the total marks that can be awarded. The review is welcome but it needs to be more inclusive.

On spreading academic stress over a longer period, the USI has defended the value of continuous assessment in our submission. We first must define continuous assessment. As far as I am concerned, continuous assessment in its purest form simply relates to the timing of assessments and is not related to whether it is an examination or course work. We need to be mindful of that aspect. There is a risk that continuous assessment might spread academic stress. Assessment should follow the curriculum rather than the other way around. Continuous assessment requires resources in all sectors and that comes back to the transitions. It is key that continuous assessment be defined.