Mr. Eamon Dennehy:

I was certainly very familiar with aptitude tests back in my day. To my knowledge, they are not used nearly as much now.

I had a dedicated career guidance teacher when I went to school all of those years ago who provided us with several interesting aptitude tests. I think some colleges may have been interested in the results. These tests used to be done - I think they still are - in first year to identify the various abilities of a new cohort. This debate brings me to a key point that we are trying to get at here, namely, the systemic inadequacies of the second level education system caused by a lack of funding. It is all right to say we should do this or that but we do not have the human and material resources to do it. We have to be careful. What we are doing with what we have is pretty impressive considering that it is only a tiny part of our GDP compared with what other countries spend.

We talk about other systems. Senator Mullen may have read the Hyland report, which refers to these very criticisms of the system, that it is not fit for purpose and not serving people properly, that we should do this or that, etc. All of these criticisms are probably true to an extent but they are levelled at other systems as well, particularly the US and UK systems. Professor Hyland mentioned them in her report. She also mentioned all kinds of alternatives, for example, introducing some other mechanism or examination to operate alongside the leaving certificate. That exam or component would suffer from the same sort of what one might call "gaming of the system" where people will be coached to do it. Who will be coached? It will be those who have the most resources. I work in the education system and it is difficult to work in it because classes are too big and teachers feel they are not doing enough and there are many students for whom they would much prefer to do more The education system is flawed but it is also lacking investment. The people who work in it are doing their best.

With regard to change, the system is not able to change under the current system of funding. For example, with regard to guidance, counselling and psychological services, as we state in the paper we submitted to the committee, these services are aspirational. They are something we would like to provide. We would like to be fair and equal but the investment to do that is not being provided.