ONE in 10 second level schools offering the transition year has been told by the Department of Education its programme is unacceptable and must be improved.
Department inspectors have also ordered a number of schools to stop using the transition year as the first year of a three year Leaving Certificate.
The inspectors were acting on claims by parents and other schools that the programme was being abused by a minority of schools intent on maximising their Leaving Cert results.
The transition year is a vocationally orientated break from exams, taken after the Junior Cert, which is designed to promote the personal and social development of students. The programme generally involves a mix of work experience, language learning, community work and project work.
An evaluation by the inspectorate has found that 89 per cent of schools were following the Department's guidelines in a satisfactory manner. But the content of the programme is criticised in 11 per cent of schools, while the quality of teaching and learning is deemed weak in 12 per cent.
The assessment of the programme is weak in 19 per cent of schools, while evaluation needs to be strengthened considerably in 25 per cent, the report says.
"The consensus among principals, teachers and pupils is that the transition year programme is a very worthwhile initiative, allowing the school to engage in genuine in school curriculum development, affording teachers the opportunity to break free of overly compartmentalised subject teaching and giving pupils the space and time to grow in maturity and to develop in self confidence," it says.
Some schools allowed their pupils to choose their Leaving Cert subjects at the beginning of the transition year for study during the year, the inspectors found.
"This practice inhibited programme innovation, imparted an unwelcome exam orientation to the year and denied pupils the opportunity which transition year should afford to reflect on their future." The report blames the lack of innovation in some schools on the "inherent traditionalism of some of those involved" and the lack of structured co operation between teachers.
A minority of schools did not provide work experience for their students. "Some of these schools were of the opinion that their pupils were not old enough to derive any significant educational benefits from such an experience and claimed that employers supported them in this view." Others did not consider work experience sufficiently important or blamed insurance difficulties.
The inspectors say they were impressed by the enthusiasm and innovative enterprise of many teachers involved in the programme. However, involvement by parents and others in the wider community, such as employers, was limited. The reports also calls for a more interdisciplinary approach to the programme.
The report is based on the 1994-95 transition year, which involved more than 20,000 pupils in 459 schools. This was three times as high as the previous year.
