In an extensive interview, the Minister for Education and Science says a new approach is needed on disadvantage

Primary testing

Q. Your predecessor, Noel Dempsey, was anxious to introduce standardised tests at primary level. What is the current position?

A. We need to evaluate what we are doing. We need more information on literacy and other issues. At present, there is not enough information in the system. Various teachers are using different tests with different outcomes and different results.

But, before embarking on new tests, we need to ask ourselves fundamental questions. How should we get this information? Who is going to use it? We have to be clear that any information will not be used to publish school league tables.

But let me be clear - I have not said that we will proceed with this kind of testing. Nobody wants a seven year-old coming under intolerable pressure because of a test. The idea of a standardised test taken by every child in the State on the one day is not a runner.

I will shortly receive a copy of a report from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) which will help to shape my thinking. We need to strike a balance between the need for more information and a situation where that information is of real assistance and used properly.

Disadvantage:

Q. An internal report prepared for Noel Dempsey was scathing about the Department's efforts in this regard. It criticised a lack of coherence in various programmes and a lack of direction. How do you respond?

A. As I see it, we have two main problems in this area. Firstly, the method and systems used to designate particular schools as being disadvantaged are inadequate. Secondly, a number of programmes in this area - however well-intentioned - have been allowed to drift without sufficient focus. We need to target them properly.

I am currently finalising a new action plan in this area which will modernise our whole approach. There will be a new method and system for identifying disadvantaged schools, using a (broader) range of indicators.

We need to address the problem of holding onto teachers in disadvantaged schools. The idea of special financial incentives for teachers in this area is not feasible. If we did this for one group we would have to do it for the Garda and everyone across the public service. But there are things we can do to support teachers such as greater in-services and supports, smaller class sizes, more resources going to schools.

Fee-paying schools

Q. One of the striking features of our education system now must be the boom in fee-paying schools and grind schools and the 20,000 unfilled places in free public schools in Dublin?

A. It is very striking. For many parents, the money that would have been put by for third-level fees is being used to pay for fee-paying schools. Many outstanding schools with outstanding teachers such as my former school (Sion Hill, Blackrock) are losing numbers.

Q. So why continue with the €80 million in annual State support to fee-paying schools?

A. All we really do for the fee-paying schools is to pay the teachers. We don't give them capitation or related grants. We support only a portion of their capital costs for their building projects.

The reality is that we would still have to pay teachers if all the pupils moved out of fee-paying schools and into the State sector in the morning. I have no objection in principle to the paying teachers in fee-paying schools.

School league tables

Q. You have railed against league tables. But the Department's own survey of public attitudes indicates overwhelming support for more information. Why should parents be denied the information they need?

A. I attended a girls' secondary school choir competition in DCU recently and I was thinking this is the kind of activity that will never be captured in a league table.

I remain strongly opposed to the tables. I can't see any way a league table can capture the essence of a school.

Parents will choose a school on the basis of the open day, when they see a range of activities going on. They want a good academic education, but they also want other elements such as sport and cultural activities. The best advertisement for every school is their students, how they behave in public places in uniform and so on. These are the things parents notice.

Of course, parents are entitled to information. The new system of Whole School Evaluation will give us information, but it may be that we need to get more information out to parents about all aspects of school. We have to find a balance between giving good practical information that is of real use to parents, while preventing a situation where this is used to compile league tables.

OECD report on third-level

Q. What is the current standing of the OECD report on third-level education? Does the Government accept its proposals?

A. The OECD report represents a template that will guide us in framing a strategy. I think there is general agreement on the structural reform it recommends - the establishment of a new tertiary education authority and so on. We will discuss this and other matters at the forthcoming colloquium of third level colleges.

But one point is clear. . . fees are not coming back (as proposed by the OECD) and I don't agree with subsuming the two research councils into Science Foundation Ireland. I think the arts and humanities could lose out if we did that.

Both I and the Government are strongly supportive of the reforms under way in the university sector. Some need to shake off centuries of structures, to reform decision-making and governance to perform in an international environment. .

But I don't want the whole process to be driven simply by economic imperatives. Universities have an educational, as well as an economic role and this must also be acknowledged.

On funding, third-level can do more to help themselves by attracting more non-EU students and by forging stronger links with industry as the OECD proposed. I don't think the colleges should ignore the level of support they are receiving - an increase of 8 per cent from the Government this year plus huge funding from outside research programmes.

Reform of the Leaving Cert

Q. How advanced are plans to reform the Leaving Cert?

A. First of all we need to acknowledge that the Leaving Cert is an independent, objective assessment that is well regarded internationally. People have great confidence in it and we should not undermine it.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) have come up with various imaginative reforms. They have opted for the Rolls Royce option with more independent learning, continuous assessment and the incorporation of Transition Year and other programmes into a new three-year Leaving Certificate cycle.

I'm just not so sure. As it is, we have many teenage boys who are not performing within a highly-structured exam system. I would worry about their capacity for independent, self- directed learning.

I have other concerns. I am a huge supporter of Transition Year and don't want to see the value of it being lost. Equally, a whole new system of continuous assessment (with exams marked externally) could be very expensive.

I like the broad nature of the exam where students take a wide range of subjects. In fact, other education systems are moving away from narrow approach towards the broader approach we have taken.