Mr. John Hammond:

I join Mr. Moran in welcoming the various contributions that have been made. They are extremely rich and valuable in looking at the broad question of senior cycle reform and the advent of a review. I might pick up on two or three of the issues which have been raised. So many issues have been raised that I would love to spend the entire evening going through some of them.

On the leaving certificate applied programme, as has been indicated, we have commenced some work on specific modules. The reason is they are regarded as having priority as particular difficulties have arisen, particularly as regards modernisation. It is not the case, as has been suggested, that there are other aspects of the leaving certificate applied programme that do not need review; it is simply a starting point. However, we argue that the main focus of attention should be on the review of the broader senior cycle programme, part of which would end up looking at the various senior cycle programmes and how well they fit together. There is no doubt, as we have heard, that the leaving certificate applied programme has had great successes. It meets a need and seems to work extremely well. It is a good quality programme. According to the ESRI which has done some work for us on it, the teaching associated with it and the learning experiences of students seem to have been well received. There is also a very good focus on skills and competencies. The weaknesses seem to be in the outcomes on leaving school, given that students sometimes have a pattern of unemployment in the labour market. There has always been a question with the leaving certificate applied programme and it is one that will have to be examined in the senior cycle review as to whether it should be ringfenced. There is also the question as to whether it is essentially a stand-alone programme which ends up reproducing social inequality and a stereotyping of leaving certificate applied programme students, to which a number of people have referred. The senior cycle review will have to look at the successes and the weaknesses and make some decisions on the future focus of the leaving certificate applied programme.

I mention in passing the senior cycle review, to which my colleague has referred. It represents an ideal basis for the work of the committee to find a voice and expression. The main areas on which it will focus are the overall identity and purposes of the senior cycle education programme. We know, as have heard this afternoon, that the senior cycle programme has many strengths, but we also know that it needs to be radically improved for those students whom it currently does not serve well.

There is the big question, and it has been raised this afternoon, of the degree to which a reformed senior cycle should establish continuity and progression with the kinds of reforms and changes that have taken place at junior cycle. It needs to examine the range of learning programmes and pathways available currently within senior cycle and whether we should look more closely at vocationally orientated pathways within the senior cycle programme for those students who are less academically orientated. The question of flexibility and choice for schools, and autonomy for schools and for students in terms of the choices they make, and the alignment of key skills with the needs of students are major questions that will emerge within the senior cycle review. We have been generating and commissioning international research to look at what is happening in other countries in regard to their upper secondary education systems. That paper will be the basis of a conference early in the new year, which will represent a starting point from the NCCA's perspective for real discussion around senior cycle review.

The last point I might take up at this stage is the one about pace in terms of the question of reform and the perceived lack of speed regarding reform. It is important to mention that when we talk about educational change, there are different elements to it. There is a developmental phase in which bodies like the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, are directly involved. There is the introduction of the change within the system which involves a wider audience. The longest phase of all is the actual realisation of the change within the classroom. When people talk about a 20 or 30 year period, it sounds like an incredibly long time, and it is, but the developmental phase might have taken two or three years. The implementation of it might have taken four or five years and it is generally reckoned that for a curriculum innovation to embed effectively within the system in terms of the teaching and learning students experience in the classroom that it can take up to seven or eight years. It is important to bear in mind that all of those points and issues feed into the whole question of pace.

We had an experience recently of significant reform at a significant level in the junior cycle. One of the things we have learned is the importance of communication in terms of getting buy-in from parents and stakeholders regarding the nature and purpose of the change and the commitment to that change.

In terms of the question of capacity building, many people say, when they look at the junior cycle reforms now, that we might have needed a capacity building phase before introducing the reforms. That is certainly something that could be looked at in a senior cycle context. There are many questions surrounding implementation arrangements and the involvement of the stakeholders. One of the Deputies has already referred to the need to bring each of the stakeholders on board for the kind of change involved in order for the change to be introduced smoothly. They are among the factors that are involved in what is a very complex process of generating curriculum change and ensuring that it is actually experienced at the level of the child.