Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This has been a very thoughtful discussion, to which everybody, on all sides of the table, has come with an open mind. That is really welcome. I am a little surprised, in a good way, that after three sessions, there is the vague outline of areas of agreement. There is not quite a consensus but there has been substantial agreement across many of the organisations from which we have heard. First, there is clear agreement that the weight of emphasis that is put on a terminal examination is excessive. That has been expressed by all the groups that have come before the committee. We need to work towards a system where students have an opportunity to build up credits, however that is structured.

Another issue where there is agreement is one we have not discussed much today but in respect of which I am more convinced of the need for action the more we talk about it. This is the need radically to expand the number of people going into apprenticeships. I am especially convinced of its importance because no matter what shape of system we envision, and we can certainly make the system much better, if there is more demand than space because there is too much emphasis on higher education, people will find ways of gaming the system. No matter what system we set up, people will find a way to game it. Culturally and policy-wise, a huge part of what we need to do is to transform the perception of apprenticeships and how they are integrated into the system. Mathematics is going to be very important in this regard because many trades, especially the emerging trades, are focused on precision, and that requires mathematics skills.

There are other areas on which there is less agreement, one being the question of external versus internal assessment. I understand the point Professor Hegarty made in this regard. I approach the matter with an open mind but my gut instinct is that the relationship between student and teacher at second level is different from the relationship at third level. We need to take account of that.

My first question is for Professor Hegarty. I will try to ask all the questions together, hoping that the witnesses will be able to keep track of them. In some ways, the idea of separating out the leaving certificate examination from the process of access to third level is appealing. To be fair to the people who designed the examination, it was never really envisioned or planned as such a mechanism. Industrially, we were in a different world when the leaving certificate was introduced but, since then, it has become a mechanism for accessing third level education. If we are to separate it out, we need fair and objective criteria for allocating third level places. One possible problem is the potential for duplication.

Second, Deputy Ó Ríordáin made an important point about what middle Ireland likes. There are things middle Ireland might prefer but there are dangers in that. I would feel a certain hesitancy in regard to personal statement interviews and other methods that are open to bias on the grounds of class, gender and race. As I said, I approach all of this with an open mind, but we need to be careful of that. If we are going to have a separate system for allocating third level places, what should that system be and how do we avoid duplication? I have a related question for all the witnesses on an issue to which Professor Hegarty referred in his presentation, namely, open access, as in the French system. Such a system would be very expensive but we owe it to students to consider and discuss all the options. I am interested in any comments from the witnesses in that regard.

I have a question for Dr. Ryan and Mr. Miley.

I am cautious in putting this question because our dealing with the leaving certificate and reform of it need not be focused on this, but we need to take consideration of it. What are the skills deficits that students coming out of the leaving certificate have? I emphasise that this is not the focus of why we need to reform the leaving certificate, but we need to be aware of it and we need to take account of it.

My final question is for Mr. Whyte. In my experience, learners in Youthreach are quite diverse and people will be in Youthreach for a wide variety of reasons. Without being too prescriptive, if Mr. Whyte was designing a new leaving certificate do we need to continue to have a leaving certificate and the leaving certificate applied? Would Mr. Whyte prefer if a reformed leaving certificate could cater for the people currently doing the leaving certificate applied just as it is, without a separate streaming programme or is it an integration of the two? Is it possible to create a leaving certificate that can cater for all learners without a different stream or a different channel? I am open-minded on those questions.