Ms Arlene Forster:

Reflecting on the comments and observations of the Chairman, many of the issues go back to how embedded the leaving certificate is in our culture and Irish society, as we touched on earlier. One of the other things that struck me as the Chairman was sharing his comments and questions was the value we place on the different programmes that currently make up senior cycle provision.

This theme emerged in the review itself. Review participants spoke about the real challenge in terms of achieving parity of esteem regarding the programmes we already have. In particular, they referenced the leaving certificate applied and leaving certificate vocational programme. As we know, 95% of young people take the leaving certificate established. The Chairman has already touched on the extent to which we see that in terms of a pathway or an entry into higher education and university. I believe some of it is about the values that we hold as a society. They are hard to challenge but we need to find a way to challenge them. From the NCCA's perspective, the senior cycle review advisory report sets out and really highlights the importance of looking at more pathways for young people and as part of that, of working as best we can to value those different pathways in order that young people see them as viable options, are given the space to think hard about what is the pathway and route they want to follow and what are their own career ambitions and aspirations. There is an absolute commitment in our review report for the redevelopment of the senior cycle to really open up those discussions and get into detailed work with schools about trying to build more flexibility and pathways into senior cycle provision itself.

I want to pick up on something else that is relevant to the points the Chairman has made and on which Deputy Jim O'Callaghan touched a little while ago. I refer to the relationship between the leaving certificate, in particular leaving certificate results, and the CAO system. Ms Feeney has spoken about this and on the question about decoupling and the challenges that can raise as well. Interestingly, in the review of the senior cycle, because as one would expect, this was part of the discussions, there was a resignation, albeit a reluctant one by some participants in the review, that such decoupling would raise its own set of difficulties and challenges. There was also an acceptance that as we redevelop the senior cycle, that relationship will need to continue to exist to some extent. However, as the senior cycle review advisory report emphasises the importance of a review of the CAO system and of the CAO system taking account of a redeveloped senior cycle, therein might lie some potential for trying to engender and encourage a value of the different pathways that a young person could follow as part of a redeveloped senior cycle.

On the specific question on whether we have had direct engagement with the national broadcaster and media on the coverage, in particular in the June period, we have not had direct engagement to date. Certainly the piece that he referenced about the intense focus on the coverage in the media in the June examination period, did feature as part of our discussions but to date, we have not had follow-up directly with the broadcaster on that.