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

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?