Ms Andrea Feeney:

They are involved already because they identify students in respect of whom they believe there might be particular problems that they need to address. They have some skills in doing that.

Regarding joined-up thinking, we work collaboratively with all of our stakeholders, particularly school authorities in terms of them implementing the scheme at the coalface at school level. We also work closely with representative organisations, including the Union of Students in Ireland, the Dyslexia Association of Ireland and other representatives of students with special educational needs. They will all have a role in the review.

I will leave the question of what the committee can do to the committee.

Regarding the review process, have faith in the work we have been doing. We have not waited for time to elapse before putting measures in place. The review of the scheme started with our board of commissioners in 2015. Back then, the scheme was very different and difficult. We had many refusals every year, we had a great deal of disappointment and we did not have continuity between junior cycle and the leaving certificate. A student was assessed at junior cycle but did not have a guarantee that he or she would have the same supports at senior cycle. That student would have to be assessed again at senior cycle. This is where the change happened in the 2016-17 year.

The Deputy mentioned compartmentalising. We have moved away from compartmentalising. Prior to the reform in the 2016-17 year, the scheme was compartmentalised. This was to the detriment of students with special educational needs. Broadening the basis of identification of students has increased the number of students accommodated within the scheme. This will be a challenging matter to return to, notwithstanding that there are students with particular needs. Dyslexia is a learning difficulty, but there are people with other learning difficulties who would also benefit from additional time were that accommodation available.

Not to pre-empt the review process, but we need a bit of time to engage in the review, take stock of where we are, look at international best practice and consider the recommendations of the 2009 group. That group recommended removing two parts of the leaving certificate examination, namely, the spelling and grammar waiver and the additional time for all students. There is an opportunity to do that. In case the committee thinks this is in the never-never, it will take some time, but the SEC has demonstrated the changes we have already made to the scheme. I mentioned them earlier. Others have been made along the way. We have shown that the scheme can be responsive to the needs of the students whom we are trying to serve when conducting State examinations.

Perhaps my colleague wishes to discuss the role of teachers in the scheme.