Mr. David Duffy:

I thank the Chair for the question. Like my colleagues from the ASTI and indeed my colleagues from the NAPD earlier, I will make reference to the really good work that is happening at NCCA at the moment around the possibility of a revised programme statement for transition year. The bit that is trying to be balanced there is between national needs and local needs. One of the great strengths of transition year is trying to balance both of those. The biggest issue in terms of provision, whether it be STEM subjects in transition or transition year generally, is around equity. Two percent of schools do not provide transition year at all and it is predominantly small schools and DEIS schools that cannot do it. My colleagues from the ASTI have said quite rightly that there is a resourcing issue here. It is possibly around extra resources being provided. I also say that the biggest single difference between transition year programmes in schools across the country is that the opportunities available to a transition year programme in a fee-charging school in a large urban area and a transition year programme in a small DEIS school in a rural area are utterly different. If we want genuine equity across the system we need to make sure we provide the resources need to the DEIS schools, rural schools, and small schools in order that they can provide a transition year programme in the same way as possibly a fee-charging school that has the resources to be able to do. I do not just mean financial resources but the social capital that comes with different types of schools.