Dr. Joseph Ryan:

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, instigated a phased and considered review of the senior cycle in 2016. It is evident that the impact of Covid has stimulated acceleration in this discussion.

Let us first acknowledge the key role of upper secondary education and the separate fact that it commands domestic and international respect. We might also be mindful of the strong social and intergenerational connection among individuals educated in Ireland. The external view from the OECD is: "Senior cycle enjoys high levels of trust in the public, and its final assessment (the Leaving Certificate) is strongly rooted in the national culture."

The enforced creation of calculated grades and accredited grades processes in 2020 and 2021 lends additional importance to this topic. The impact of the pandemic on student engagement and assessment prompted a level of mitigation that has resulted in consequent problems for selection in at least some higher education programmes. It effectively compromised the greater granularity that resulted from the 2017 review of the grading system.

The initial question might usefully be around what the review is trying to achieve. Any critique of the leaving certificate tends to converge on key elements: the sense that the senior cycle has too narrow a focus and that curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment could be calibrated better to prepare candidates for a fast-changing world; the pressure imposed by the final concentrated summative assessment; the shifting purpose from what was a final award with significant currency to what is now essentially a portal to further or higher education; and, finally, consideration of fostering lifelong learning and facilitating a better continuity of approach to ease transition and assimilation.

Taking these in turn, the relevancy and currency of the curriculum can be anticipated to be focal points in the advisory report. THEA has encouraged a broadening of the scope of the curriculum to recognise differing intelligence and to encompass more active and problem-based learning. If we are to shift cultural perceptions and to value all learning equally, and if we wish to realise a moment when students will contemplate pursuing an apprenticeship just as readily as an academic programme, then we need to broaden an inclusive curriculum to reflect better the diversity of what a modern society requires.

There have been calls to do away with assessment altogether. We should learn from recent examples of mitigations that have tended, unwittingly, to relocate a problem. In the absence of a graded and respected leaving certificate, it is likely that many students and parents will look to replace it with something such as the international baccalaureate. Any such decision would have consequences for Ireland’s educational reputation, which the OECD attests.

It is important to recognise that assessment drives learning. Authentic and timely assessment is for learning. Properly calibrated, it helps to develop students' ability to evaluate themselves and make judgments to enhance their own performance. Ireland is somewhat of an outlier in our secondary education's historic reliance on summative assessment for certification purposes. This expresses itself mostly in written tasks, which favour a particular type of intelligence. It is conservative and innately iniquitous. The lessons from Covid, the embrace of a digital world, and the technical facility of younger generations all propose that we should explore a far greater component of formative assessment. This will require stakeholder buy-in but the benefits for learning and student welfare are indisputable.

The leaving certificate was once a passport to many jobs. This has changed and most employers seek evidence of a post-secondary qualification. Thus, the purpose has altered. This has impacted the scope of the examination. Greater choice and a larger component of self-directed learning would be more consistent with the ambitions for lifelong learning. It makes practical sense to utilise the leaving certificate as a contributing determinant in selection for higher education. Replacing it or supplementing it with a separate matriculation process would simply transfer pressure as well as adding a significant administrative burden. The CAO system is elective and it has the quality of being dispassionate. It is publicly valued for its link to State-managed appraisal. THEA supports the retention of the system but with an altered assessment approach and an earlier indication point that takes the pressure off the learner, the State Examinations Commission, SEC, the CAO and the receiving colleges. This presupposes a greater proportion of formative assessment and a more modular approach.

We must also guard against the tail wagging the dog. The simple truth is that higher education is open to all with ambition and reasonable application. The headlines and the pressures centre on a delimited number of high-demand programmes with finite places. In seeking to reform the system, we might usefully separate out this smaller cohort of programmes for particular attention.

Concerning continuity of the pedagogical approach, learning and assessment in second level is different from that to be expected in higher education. There would be appreciable merit in aligning approaches so that not just the final examination but the substance and the mode of the senior cycle better prepare our citizens for lifelong learning whenever and wherever they might choose to pursue it.