Towards a Better Future

Recommendations

Info

Chapter Five: Transition from Second Level to Higher Education would require individual scrutiny and professional judgement. Given the demands on the time and resources of admissions and academic departments in Irish higher education, it would be unrealistic to expect that Ireland could afford to introduce such a wide-ranging selection system. DEVELOPMENTS IN IRELAND SINCE 2011 In a paper prepared for the NCCA and the HEA in 2011, Áine Hyland suggested some alternative and/or additional selection mechanisms for Irish higher education institutions. The paper advised that any proposed change to the current system would need to be carefully considered and the advantages and disadvantages carefully weighed against each other (Hyland, 2011). Building on the 2011 report and an NCCA/HEA Seminar on transition from second to third level which was held in September 2011 (HEA 2011), a Transitions Committee was set up, consisting of representatives of the Department of Education and Skills, HEA, NCCA, SEC, Irish Universities Association (IUA), QQI, and Institutes of Technology Ireland (IoTI). The committee, which is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of Education, has met regularly since 2012. Issues relating to selection and admission are discussed and analysed by this committee, and various alternatives to the Points system are considered. A Task Group on Reform of University Selection and Entry (TGRUSE) has been set up by the IUA and its programme of work has three major elements: (a) Broadening Entry Routes; (b) Improving the Existing System, and (c) Decoupling university entry from the Leaving Certificate. A wide range of options was considered under each heading, the Task Force developed principles, and criteria against which proposals were tested (IUA, 2014). For example, any new proposal should promote positive educational values, outcomes and personal development at second and third level; it should reward student merit, achievement and potential; promote equity of access; ensure reliability, validity, transparency and simplicity; maintain integrity, incorruptibility and a high level of public trust etc. Among the possible alternative approaches to selection considered by the Task Force were supplementary student submissions, e.g. personal statements; portfolios of work and e-portfolios; interviews; supplementary assessment tests, such as aptitude tests or other tests of intellectual ability; school references and school reports; and adjusting for difference in school performance, by using contextual information to reduce socio-economic bias in points scores. The options were researched and analysed by sub-groups reporting to the Task Force. Each subgroup reviewed available evidence and summarised the positives and negatives of the options. Having considered the research reports, the Task Force supported the recommendation that Leaving Certificate assessment should focus more on higher-order skills, including a suggestion to have a — 95 —
Towards a Better Future: A Review of the Irish School System special paper set and marked by the SEC, which would focus specifically on skills such as problemsolving, analytic thinking etc. - skills that are deemed essential for successful engagement in higher education. The Task Force also supported proposals for reducing the number of grades in the Leaving Certificate and a concomitant revision of the points system. The Task Force also supported the suggestion that First Year courses should be more generic and should avoid undue specialisation too soon. As regards alternative selection systems or supplemental approaches, it concluded that great care would need to be taken in the use of personal statements to avoid socio-economic bias and fraudulent submissions. While the potential of portfolios and/or e-portfolios was recognised, it was felt that any assessment of general portfolios would best be done in partnership with NCCA and the SEC. The Task Force discussed a variety of supplementary assessment tests, some of which are already in use in Irish higher education institutions, and referred in particular to the Irish experience of HPAT, to which there have been mixed reactions. For example, there is compelling evidence that applicants can improve “ their score on the HPAT tests by attending special classes or through individual coaching. This militates against those who cannot afford to pay for grinds or for coaching and adds yet another obstacle to higher education entry for those from less advantaged backgrounds. An interview system did not get much support from the Task Force and is unlikely to be introduced in the foreseeable future. However, recent reports suggest that the introduction of bonus points for subjects that are relevant to the course applied for is still under consideration. While the potential of portfolios and/or e-portfolios was recognised, it was felt that any assessment of general portfolios would best be done in partnership with NCCA and the SEC. ” There was widespread support among Task Force members for the HEAR scheme, whereby quotas of places are set aside on courses in all higher education institutions for students from educationally and socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The scheme has been in place for over a decade and its success is widely acknowledged. While it has not removed all the barriers to participation and retention of under-represented minorities, it has gone some way towards alleviating some of the obstacles (HEA, 2013). The Task Force was of the view that a feasibility study into an alternative method of selection for a small number of its courses, currently being carried out by Trinity College Dublin, would provide interesting and useful information. Under the terms of this feasibility study, which was introduced in autumn 2013 and is now in its third year, 25 students are selected each year (Heaphy et al, 2016). — 96 —
Page 1 and 2:
Towards a BETTER FUTURE A Review of
Page 3 and 4:
Published in Ireland by IPPN (the I
Page 5 and 6:
Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 109: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
show all

Towards a Better Future

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?