"Embracing diversity in all its forms": The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education

Carroll, Eamonn; MacCoy, Selina; Ye, Keyu Research Report "Embracing diversity in all its forms": The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education Research Series, No. 182 Provided in Cooperation with: The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin Suggested Citation: Carroll, Eamonn; MacCoy, Selina; Ye, Keyu (2024) : "Embracing diversity in all its forms": The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education, Research Series, No. 182, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs182 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/299333 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ‘EMBRACING DIVERSITY IN ALL ITS FORMS’: THE VOLUNTARY SECONDARY SECTOR IN IRISH EDUCATION EAMONN CARROLL, SELINA MCCOY AND KEYU YE RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 182 APRIL 2024 E V I D E N C E F O R P O L I C Y ‘EMBRACING DIVERSITY IN ALL ITS FORMS’: THE VOLUNTARY SECONDARY SECTOR IN IRISH EDUCATION Eamonn Carroll Selina McCoy Keyu Ye April 2024 RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 182 Available to download from www.esri.ie © The Economic and Social Research Institute Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2 ISBN 978-0-7070-0551-5 https://doi.org/10.26504/rs182 This Open Access work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. ABOUT THE ESRI The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) advances evidence-based policymaking that supports economic sustainability and social progress in Ireland. ESRI researchers apply the highest standards of academic excellence to challenges facing policymakers, focusing on ten areas of critical importance to 21st century Ireland. The Institute was founded in 1960 by a group of senior civil servants led by Dr T.K. Whitaker, who identified the need for independent and in-depth research analysis. Since then, the Institute has remained committed to independent research and its work is free of any expressed ideology or political position. The Institute publishes all research reaching the appropriate academic standard, irrespective of its findings or who funds the research. The ESRI is a company limited by guarantee, answerable to its members and governed by a Council, comprising up to 14 representatives drawn from a crosssection of ESRI members from academia, civil services, state agencies, businesses and civil society. Funding for the ESRI comes from research programmes supported by government departments and agencies, public bodies, competitive research programmes, membership fees and an annual grant-in-aid from the Department of Public Expenditure NDP Delivery and Reform. Further information is available at www.esri.ie. THE AUTHORS Eamonn Carroll was a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Trinity College Dublin (TCD) at the time when he was working with the ESRI. Selina McCoy is an Associate Research Professor at the ESRI and an Adjunct Professor in Sociology at TCD. Keyu Ye is a Research Assistant at the ESRI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research team would like to acknowledge the support and contribution of education stakeholders who gave so generously of their time. We would also like to thank members of the Department of Education who provided data on funding for schools. We also greatly appreciate and acknowledge the valuable contributions and engagement of students, parents, school principals, SENCOs/guidance counsellors and other school staff members, chairs/members of boards of management, as well as other stakeholders who participated in the study. We would like to thank the Educational Research Centre team for their work on PISA, which has proved an important part of this study. We also appreciate data from Oide on newly appointed principals. In addition, we would like to express our thanks to internal ESRI and external reviewers for peer reviewing this report. Also within the ESRI, we would like to thank Conor O’Toole, Caoimhe Dempsey, Sarah Burns and Julianne Flynn for helpful guidance and Professor Helen Russell, Head of the Social Research Division of the ESRI. Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) is funded by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY). It is managed by DCEDIY in association with the Central Statistics Office (CSO). Results in this report are based on analyses of data from Research Microdata Files provided by the CSO. Neither the CSO nor DCEDIY take any responsibility for the views expressed or the outputs generated from these analyses. This research has been funded by the Joint Managerial Body for Voluntary Secondary Schools (JMB), which provided valuable support at all stages of the study. The ESRI research team remained independent and ensured objectivity at all stages in the research process. At no time have the researchers revealed the identity of the participating schools or individuals or discussed any findings regarding individual schools. This report has been accepted for publication by the Institute, which does not itself take institutional policy positions. The report has been peer reviewed prior to publication. The authors are solely responsible for the content and the views expressed. Table of contents | i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Motivation for the report 1 1.2 Policy context 3 1.3 Outline of the report 13 CHAPTER 2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Sample design ....................................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Focus groups with students .................................................................................................. 19 2.4 Interviews with key stakeholders ......................................................................................... 20 2.5 Student survey ...................................................................................................................... 23 2.6 Research ethics ..................................................................................................................... 31 2.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 3 School profile ..................................................................................................................... 33 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 33 3.2 Historical school profiles ....................................................................................................... 33 3.3 School profiles in our sample ................................................................................................ 38 3.4 School choice ........................................................................................................................ 51 3.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 4 School ethos and culture ................................................................................................... 57 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 57 4.2 School ethos .......................................................................................................................... 59 4.3 School climate ....................................................................................................................... 77 4.4 Student engagement ............................................................................................................ 80 4.5 Student voice ........................................................................................................................ 88 4.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 94 ii | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education Chapter 5 School gender mix ................................................................................................................ 97 5.1 Introduction 97 5.2 Secondary data analysis 97 5.3 Student survey results 99 5.4 Qualitative interviews and focus groups 103 5.5 Summary 106 CHAPTER 6 Technology and learning .................................................................................................. 109 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 109 6.2 Transition to secondary school ........................................................................................... 109 6.3 Subject choice ..................................................................................................................... 110 6.4 Extent to which subjects are seen as interesting or difficult .............................................. 115 6.5 Junior Cycle experiences ..................................................................................................... 116 6.6 Senior Cyle programmes and curriculum............................................................................ 120 6.7 Academic self-image ........................................................................................................... 124 6.8 Teaching and learning ......................................................................................................... 126 6.9 Academic and SEN supports ............................................................................................... 132 6.10 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 138 CHAPTER 7 Technology use at school ............................................................................................. 141 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 141 7.2 Overall use of technology at school .................................................................................... 141 7.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 154 CHAPTER 8 COVID-19 impact .......................................................................................................... 155 8.1 COVID-19 experiences and impact ..................................................................................... 155 8.2 Qualitative interviews and focus groups ............................................................................ 159 8.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 169 CHAPTER 9 Broader social and personal development ...................................................................... 171 9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 171 9.2 Citizenship education and social awareness ....................................................................... 171 9.3 Participation in activities outside school ............................................................................ 177 9.4 Benefits of second level education ..................................................................................... 183 9.5 Student wellbeing and life satisfaction ............................................................................... 186 9.6 Plans and outlook for the future ......................................................................................... 193 9.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 194 Table of contents | iii CHAPTER 10 Key challenges and strengths ....................................................................................... 197 10.1 Resources and funding ........................................................................................................ 197 10.2 Leadership challenges ......................................................................................................... 204 10.3 Teacher recruitment ........................................................................................................... 208 10.4 Support from the JMB ......................................................................................................... 209 10.5 Positive school environments ............................................................................................. 212 10.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 214 CHAPTER 11 Discussion and conclusion ............................................................................................ 217 11.1 Summary of key findings ..................................................................................................... 218 11.2 Implications for the voluntary secondary sector ................................................................ 224 11.3 Implications for national education policy ......................................................................... 229 11.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 235 References ...................................................................................................................................... 239 Appendix – Additional tables .............................................................................................................. 251 x | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education NEPS National Educational Psychological Service NFQ National Framework of Qualifications OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PE Physical education PISA Programme for International Student Assessment SEC State Examinations Commission SCP School Completion Programme SEN Special educational needs SENCO Special educational needs coordinator SNA Special needs assistant(s) SSS Secretariat of Secondary Schools SSSF School Services Support Fund STEM Science, technology, engineering and mathematics SUSI Student Universal Support Ireland TY Transition Year TCD Trinity College Dublin VEC Vocational Education Committees VLE Virtual learning environment UN United Nations UNCRPD UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Executive summary | xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Irish education system is undergoing significant change as it navigates the challenges of the 2020s. Schools are at the frontline of Ireland’s efforts to integrate migrant families, build an inclusive society and tackle generational socioeconomic inequality. They are also, increasingly, key sites of contestation over deep social questions like the place of faith and secularism in public institutions and the best path to ensuring young people thrive, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. While many of these challenges resonate across the second-level sector as all schools grapple with the difficulties and opportunities of educating young adults in today’s Ireland, the focus of this report is on the voluntary secondary school sector. The report presents rich evidence from a mixed-method research study across 21 voluntary secondary schools. The research was commissioned by the Joint Managerial Body for Voluntary Secondary Schools (JMB), with the research questions designed to examine the features and experiences of students, teachers and school leaders across the voluntary sector. However, the study allows for comparisons between experiences in voluntary secondary schools and other sectors. In particular, the survey of students undertaken in this study is compared to the nationally representative longitudinal study Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) and the International Student Assessment (PISA study) on 15 year olds in Ireland and across the European Union (EU). This approach allows for a deep exploration of the voluntary secondary sector, while also placing experiences in a national and international context. Voluntary secondary schools, accounting for over half of all second-level schools, are privately owned and managed but are largely publicly funded schools, usually under the patronage of an individual body such as a religious community, a charitable trust or a private charitable company. The voluntary secondary sector includes an increasingly diverse school profile, particularly in terms of denomination and ethos. They are distinct from the other two sectors, Education and Training Board (ETB) schools and community and comprehensive (C&C) schools in relation to the management structures in operation and the type of education traditionally offered. Traditionally, voluntary secondary schools offered academic instruction to ‘academic students’ while vocational schools (as they were then called) offered vocational and practical instruction, implicitly (and often explicitly) to ‘non-academic students’. Such differences have narrowed significantly over time, and the trend remains towards convergence. xii | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education This study examines two key issues. Firstly, it seeks to consider whether the voluntary secondary sector remains distinct from the other sectors in terms of the cohort of students who attend. Secondly, it explores two areas in which voluntary secondary schools are distinct – the specific ethos of each voluntary secondary school and the gender mix across the sector. It also aims to capture the contribution of the voluntary secondary sector to the Irish education system more broadly, attempting to take a holistic view of what schools are doing and how they are doing it. In 2023, a large-scale mixed-method research study was conducted across 21 voluntary secondary schools, selected to represent the national profile of schools in the sector in size, gender and composition. The research included a survey with second and fifth year students (N=2,243), focus groups with students, interviews with school personnel, parents, members of school boards of management and key stakeholders across eight organisations. RESULTS The report analyses diverse perspectives within (and beyond) the voluntary secondary sector across key dimensions, including school ethos and culture, school gender mix, the student experience, teaching and learning, the (enduring) impact of COVID-19, student wellbeing, non-academic aspects of school life, as well as the unique challenges and strengths of this sector. • The voluntary secondary sector has long included a diverse school profile, in terms of school size, location, gender mix, denomination and ethos. While nearly 90% of voluntary secondary schools have a Catholic ethos, there are sizeable numbers of Church of Ireland, interand multi-denominational schools, and a number of Quaker, Jewish, Methodist, Presbyterian and Educate Together schools within the sector. Differences between the three sectors in intake and outcome have narrowed over time, though some differences remain. However, the diversity within the voluntary secondary sector remains pronounced, with different voluntary secondary schools serving different populations in a variety of ways. • The ethos valued by students includes community-building, extracurricular engagement, balancing academic and personal development, and a commitment to inclusion and diversity. Despite varying views on religious ethos, building a school ethos emphasising student-centricity, diversity, inclusion and community-building emerged across the schools. • In terms of school gender mix, historical data indicate an increase in the percentage of students attending coeducational schools. Students, regardless of attending single-sex or coeducational schools, favoured coeducational settings, while preferences varied among staff and parents. Although some students believed their school’s gender mix supported their learning and Executive summary | xiii preparedness for the future, fewer than 20% of respondents in single-sex schools preferred their school’s gender mix, compared to almost 90% in coeducational schools. • In terms of curriculum, gender differences persist in the subjects available to students and in terms of their actual subject choices, as well as in the extent to which different subjects are seen as interesting or difficult. Only a small minority of students find learning Irish interesting, raising implications for the national language. At Junior Cycle concerns arose around an excessive emphasis on exams, the added pressure placed on students by the classroombased assessments (CBAs), the removal of foundation level papers in the Junior Cycle Framework, a perceived lack of challenge, the high numbers receiving a ‘merit’ and a lack of preparedness for the Senior Cycle. • Overall, technology was seen to enhance teaching and learning experiences, facilitate communication, support collaborative work and develop independent learning skills. However, there was awareness that its effectiveness depends on how it is used. • Despite strong environmental awareness, students reported limited engagement in related activities. While students reflected positively on their social, academic and personal development, they were less positive about their schools’ role in building self-confidence, encouraging reading for pleasure and, in particular, making friends with the opposite sex. Although most students actively participated in sports and physical activities (dependent on the volunteerism of teachers), levels of participation declined in Senior Cycle and activity levels were also lower among girls, students with special educational needs (SEN) and those from economically vulnerable families. • Regarding schools’ academic and SEN supports, some students expressed concerns about their specific learning needs not being met. There was a preference among students for more individualised or small group supports. Concerns were raised in relation to increasing demands placed on schools, difficulties in securing staff with the necessary professional qualifications and skills, infrastructural deficits and appropriate classroom design to accommodate diverse needs. • The results provide important evidence of an enduring impact of the COVID19 pandemic on student motivation, socio-emotional wellbeing, social development and ability to reconnect with peers and manage stress. • Life satisfaction levels also varied widely, being somewhat lower among girls, students with additional needs and those from economically vulnerable families. Students who report feeling they belong at school and who perceive better wellbeing supports at school are more likely to score higher on life satisfaction. The potential detrimental impacts of increased technology use on students’ wellbeing were also noted, coupled with calls for enhanced professional development for teachers to support wellbeing. • While the experience during the COVID-19 pandemic and since has highlighted the urgent need for professional, therapeutic supports for children and young xiv | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education adults, the results from this study also highlight the importance of resourcing all school communities to provide a diversity of enriching activities within and outside the classroom to support young people as they develop. • The report concludes with some over-arching challenges facing the voluntary secondary sector, including resources and funding and challenges in relation school leadership. Interviews with school leaders also highlighted concerns related to meeting day-to-day costs such as heating and insurance, as well as challenges in maintaining old and often unsuitable school buildings built for a different era. Finally, the report concludes by discussing the deep attachment and pride felt by many respondents from across the school community towards their schools. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Implications for the voluntary secondary sector Throughout this study, the evidence has shown that students with fewer family resources and those with additional needs generally fare less well than their peers across a range of domains and outcomes. Students attending DEIS schools were found to benefit in terms of curricular provision, a strong emphasis on literacy skills, opportunities to participate in sports (particularly for girls), their role in decision-making and the nature of their interaction with their teachers. However, two challenges emerged. Schools serving disadvantaged communities that are not part of the DEIS programme struggled to meet high levels of student need. A second larger problem related to the capacity of schools to meet growing student and community need, particularly in a context of funding shortfalls for schools, argued to be more pressing in the voluntary secondary sector. School leaders and wider stakeholders asked the question, how much can schools realistically do? Students attending fee-charging schools benefit from additional resources, which manifest in a diversity of ways. Students report higher levels of engagement (including liking school, working hard at school and viewing schoolwork as worth doing), lower levels of school absence, higher academic self-image, greater support for higher-level maths take-up, greater levels of participation in sports (particularly among girls), and school cultures marked by a stronger focus on values and student voice. While many stakeholders in fee-charging schools emphasised the inclusivity and diversity of their student body, others pointed to a tension between these values and the exclusionary effect of charging fees. Interviewees in fee-charging schools pointed to the challenges caused by the lower level of public funding they receive, especially in terms of building maintenance and development and teacher retention. However, none of these interviewees foresaw a move away from the fee-charging model in the near term, as they felt this would undermine the school’s ability to sustain its current level of curricular and extracurricular offerings to students. Executive summary | xv The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound and enduring impact on young people and their families and schools. Fifth year students missed out on crucial phase in terms of their maturation, in particular missing out on engagements with school over third and fourth year, which they see as impacting on their learning now. Stakeholders and experts continue to highlight the impact of COVID-19 on young people’s mental health, highlighting dramatic increases in referrals to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Additional cost of living supports were provided in Budget 2023 to mitigate inflationary pressures on schools, as well as €5 million for mental health supports for the 2022/2023 academic year. However, it is likely that much greater funding will be required to provide adequate preventive and early interventions as well as treatment in schools and other settings. The scale of the preference expressed by students for coeducation was a surprise, with only a small minority of students in single-sex schools actively preferring their current school gender mix. One issue that came to the fore in our conversations with students, and in the survey data, related to participation in sports among girls, particularly girls in coeducational settings. Students in some (but not all) coeducational schools highlighted a hierarchy of opportunity, with boys’ sports taking centre stage. A dominance of male-orientated sport in coeducational settings has also been found in other countries and is explicitly acknowledged in the European Commission’s Gender Equality in Sport statement. There is a clear need to promote gender equality in sport, including school-based sport. Community featured strongly, reflecting the inclusion of all students and the positive relationships between staff and students. Students see respect as the driving force of the ethos in their school, linked to valuing students for who they are and also to students reciprocating this respect and engagement. The question of how a religious ethos fits into an increasingly secular society is one which raised strong opinions on both sides, as well as a sizeable contingent of people who didn’t feel strongly about it one way or the other. Overall, there was a sense in many schools of the ethos developing significantly over time, softening and opening up to more religious diversity among the student population. Religion was also highlighted by students for its important role in promoting awareness, tolerance and respect. Students are less positive about their voice and involvement in school decision-making processes, raising an important issue for schools to address. As well as concerns over the adequacy of supports and facilities, school leaders highlighted the considerable demands being placed on them across the multiplicity of roles they play – administrative, financial, human resources, industrial relations, infrastructural. Stakeholders repeatedly emphasised the excessive and widereaching demands placed on school leaders, the inadequacy of supports provided and the widespread implications in terms of burnout and retention. While research xvi | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education prior to the pandemic showed wide variation across schools in the extent to which digital technologies were embedded in teaching and learning (Marcus-Quinn et al., 2019), this study shows wide variations persist in the post-COVID era. Students are acutely aware of these differences and are particularly vocal on the perceived shortcomings in teacher competencies in this regard. As well as state-of-the-art digital hardware and software, a key challenge also relates to the availability of digital resources. Implications for national education policy Weaknesses in the Junior Cycle Framework have been highlighted in this study, particularly in terms of CBAs not being experienced as a positive learning experience by some students and teachers and a mismatch between Junior and Senior Cycle education, raising important issues for policy. It is interesting to note that recent publications from the longitudinal study of the Junior Cycle Framework echo the results of our research in voluntary secondary schools. Overall, students across voluntary secondary schools did not seem to be engaged in activities that promote global competence, but largely consider themselves as being respectful towards people from other cultures. In view of the importance of an informed citizenry, the evidence supports the argument for a greater focus on civic and cultural education. Students, staff and wider stakeholders spoke repeatedly of the importance of inclusion in schools. Many students spoke of their school’s ethos as embodying inclusion and inclusive values. Researchers have been increasingly debating what inclusion should look like, particularly in terms of supporting students with additional educational needs. Commentators have suggested that the proliferation of special classes creates a tension with policy objectives around inclusion (Kenny et al., 2020; McCoy et al., 2016). Students in this study valued being withdrawn in small groups for extra supports, rather than more fixed and larger groupings, raising an important issue for policy. Finally, this study has highlighted how school infrastructural deficits and teacher supply problems are impacting the capacity of schools to offer a diversity of curricular and extracurricular activities. The findings also highlight that the system is reliant on volunteerism to provide extracurricular programmes and stakeholders question the sustainability of this. Harford and Fleming (2023) note that while the issue of a steady supply of teachers has been a feature of the evolving complexion of the Irish educational landscape for decades, the problem has become more pronounced in recent years. Executive summary | xvii Within an evolving system, this report shows some strengths of voluntary secondary schools that should be preserved. In particular, in a time of increasing focus on international standardised assessment measures like PISA or Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) scores as the measure of an education system, the commitment of voluntary secondary schools to the holistic development of students as part of a school community is more important than ever. Schools are not just places where young people learn testable subject matter, they are a dense web of educational experiences and social relations where children are shaped into adults. We hope this report gives a sense of how voluntary secondary schools are going about this work at the moment, and how they might continue doing so in the future. Introduction | 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 MOTIVATION FOR THE REPORT The Irish education system, like Irish society more broadly, is undergoing significant change as it navigates the challenges of the 2020s. Schools are at the frontline of Ireland’s efforts to integrate newcomer families to Ireland, build an inclusive society and tackle generational socioeconomic inequality. They are also, increasingly, key sites of contestation over deep social questions like the place of faith and secularism in public institutions and the best path to ensuring young people thrive, regardless of their gender and sexual orientation. These concerns do not exist in a vacuum; schools are responding to them under the pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic and its lasting effects, while trying to keep up with the potential and pitfalls of rapid technological innovation. Education – the core business of schools – is at a possible point of inflection as the dust settles on the implementation of the new Junior Cycle curriculum and plans for Senior Cycle redevelopment begin in earnest. There is also cause for concern in relation to the recruitment and retention of teachers, as well as other vital staff, and to the risk of work overload and burnout across the school community. While many of these challenges resonate across the second-level sector as all schools grapple with the difficulties and opportunities of educating young adults in today’s Ireland, the focus of this report is on the voluntary secondary sector. The Secretariat of Secondary Schools (SSS) was established in 1973 to look after the interests of voluntary secondary schools. The SSS is a professional school management organisation representing the interests of all voluntary secondary schools, promoting the advancement of education, providing support, training and advisory services, and carrying out educational research and development. The SSS is organised into two divisions, the Association of Management of Catholic Secondary Schools (AMCSS) and the Joint Managerial Body (JMB). Each has a distinct role and function. The AMCSS promotes the interests and welfare of Catholic voluntary secondary schools in Ireland. Some of the company’s activities are operated by its JMB division, including engaging in discussion and negotiation, and specific supports and services. Voluntary secondary schools are privately owned and managed schools, usually under the patronage of an individual body such as a religious community, a charitable trust or a private charitable company. They comprise roughly half of the Irish second level sector, both in terms of the number of schools and the number of students attending them. In the 2022/2023 academic year, 385 out of 723 postprimary schools were in the voluntary secondary sector, while 215,955 out of 8 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education 1.2.5 Diversity in schools Ireland has seen significant demographic change in the 21st century so far, and schools have evolved rapidly to serve a more diverse student body. As with the social inequality discussed in the previous section, it is vital that schools provide equal opportunities to students regardless of their place of birth, race or ethnicity. In their eighth Integration Monitor, McGinnity et al. (2023) note that the migrant population in Ireland tends to have higher levels of education than the Irish-born population. In terms of PISA reading scores, scores are significantly lower for migrant students who speak a language other than English in the home compared to Irish-origin students. Overall, there is no difference between migrants from an English-speaking background and Irish-origin students. There are also no differences between Irish-origin and either of the migrant-origin groups in maths and science. However, findings from earlier monitoring reports on integration and other research studies highlight the role of English-language skills, with evidence suggesting that those who speak a foreign language at home may face disadvantages. This underlines the importance of monitoring needs, spending and effectiveness of English-language tuition in Irish schools. Host-country language skills are also key for facilitating economic, social and cultural integration among adults so the lack of any coordinated strategy for English as a second language in Ireland is judged to be of concern (McGinnity et al., 2023). However, it should be noted that English as an Additional Language (EAL) specific inspections are now taking place in schools. 1.2.6 Capital and current expenditure Overall, international comparisons suggest relatively low levels of investment in education in Ireland, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP). Using this metric, Ireland ranks as one of the highest-performing countries in Europe in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. This stems from relatively low levels of investment combined with high scoring in terms of outputs, at least as measured by PISA (Agasisti et al., 2023). However, stakeholders argue that modified gross national income (GNI*) is a more appropriate metric for Ireland, 9 with analyses suggesting that Ireland’s expenditure on secondary education is close to the EU average of 9 According to CSO (undated), the modified gross national income (GNI) is a metric tailored to measure the Irish economy’s size by excluding globalisation impacts. While gross domestic product (GDP) quantifies a country’s total economic activity, it often includes profits made in Ireland but immediately transferred to foreign company owners. In contrast, GNI adjusts GDP by excluding net profits sent abroad, accounting for the net income from overseas, making GNI a more accurate reflection of the domestic economy. See https://www.cso.ie/en/interactivezone/statisticsexplained/nationalaccountsexplained/modifiedgni/. The modified GNI (GNI*) is increasingly being used as an indicator in domestic assessment of Ireland’s debt position and fiscal sustainability analysis around the public finances (Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, 2023) as well as by the European Commission (European Union, 2023) and other international bodies such as the European Central Bank (Andersson et al., 2023). Introduction | 9 1.8, and above the OECD average (Department of Education, 2024). 10 Using this metric, the Irish education system demonstrates high performance with relatively equitable outcomes, as evidenced by high performance in both national and international assessments, most recently in PISA 2022 (Donoghue et al., 2023). The Department of Education provides funding to recognised primary and postprimary schools in the Free Education Scheme by way of per capita grants. The grants are based on the recognised enrolments of the relevant academic year. The two main grants provided are the Capitation Grant to cater for day-to-day running costs such as heating, lighting, cleaning, insurance and general up-keep, and the Ancillary/School Services Support Fund (SSSF) grant to cater for the cost of employing ancillary services staff (such as school secretaries). Following the adoption of a Workplace Relations Commission agreement by Forsa in 2022, grantfunded school secretaries are now placed on the Department’s payroll, relieving schools of salary responsibilities. 11 The Ancillary/SSSF grant is being adjusted accordingly. The DEIS programme serves as a primary policy tool in addressing educational disadvantage in both primary and post-primary schools, aiming to support students at risk of disadvantage and social exclusion while enhancing overall educational outcomes. DEIS grants are provided to support schools in achieving targets outlined in their DEIS action plans, particularly targeting children and young people most vulnerable to educational disadvantage. The most recent figures show that 232 post-primary schools participate in the DEIS programme, with a total allocation of €5.5 million for the 2023/2024 academic year, including €1.452 million for voluntary secondary schools. Schools also receive a range of other grants such as the Book Grant and programme grants (see Table 1.1 for grant details). Regarding the Book Grant, Budget 2024 allocated funding to extend the provision of free schoolbooks to Junior Cycle pupils in post-primary schools, with the scheme being rolled out for the 2024/2025 academic year. This initiative will benefit over 213,000 students across 670 recognised post-primary schools, ensuring access to essential resources such as journals, copybooks, dictionaries and calculators without the need for parents or guardians to purchase or rent them. To support the administration of the scheme, the Department is providing an Administration Support Grant to post-primary schools based on their size for the 2024/2025 school year, which can be used to cover additional administrative tasks associated with implementing the scheme. Funding for books for Senior Cycle and Transition Year students will continue to be 10 This information regarding capital and current expenditure was obtained through personal communication with the Department of Education in March 2024, when the report was being prepared. 11 Circular Letter 0036/2022; see Circular-Letter-0036_2022.pdf (fssu.ie). 10 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education provided, 12 with schools in the DEIS programme receiving €39 per student and nonDEIS schools receiving €24 per student. This grant remains in place to assist schools in purchasing schoolbooks, including those for book rental schemes. TABLE 1.1 POST-PRIMARY CAPITATION RELATED GRANT RATES Grant type Voluntary secondary (€) C&C (€) ETB (€) Details Capitation Grant/Non-Pay Grant 316.00 276.00 276.00 Rate per student SSSF Grant ** 224.50 122.50 99.00 Rate per student Secretary grants ** 66.50 N/A N/A Rate per student up to a max of 350 students Caretaker grants 54.50 N/A N/A Rate per student up to a max of 350 students Cost of living 75.00 75.00 75.00 Rate per student Junior Cycle Schoolbook Grant 309.00 309.00 309.00 Rate per student for the 2024/2025 school year TY & 5th & 6th year Book Grant Rate per student DEIS 39.00 39.00 39.00 Non-DEIS 24.00 24.00 24.00 Physics and chemistry 13.00 13.00 13.00 Rate per student Transition Year Grant 95.00 95.00 95.00 Rate per student Junior Certificate Schools Programme (JCSP) Grant 60.00 60.00 60.00 Rate per student Leaving Cert Applied 151.00 151.00 151.00 Rate per student Special Class Grant 201.00 201.00 201.00 Students psychologically assessed as having a mild or moderate general learning disability and participating in NCSE approved special classes Traveller Capitation 213.50 213.50 213.50 Rate per Traveller student enrolled in schools Irish Bi-Lingual Grant 110.50 N/A N/A Rate per student where all subjects are taught through Irish Source: Department of Education (personal communication). As part of the cost-of-living measures introduced in Budget 2023, €90 million was provided as one-off additional funding to aid recognised primary and post-primary schools within the Free Education Scheme, specifically to address challenges stemming from rising energy costs. This funding, which supported schools in 12 Department of Education. (2024). ‘Schoolbooks Grant guidance for post-primary schools 2024/25’, https://assets.gov.ie/286443/3d4d1f02-42c5-4932-9ebd-6541a3a977a0.pdf. Introduction | 11 meeting increased running costs, was provided alongside ongoing base increases included in Budgets 2022, 2023 and 2024. Furthermore, the €81 million allocated for capitation, inclusive of €60 million from Budget 2024’s cost-of-living measures, aimed to restore capitation to previous levels, benefitting all recognised primary and post-primary schools within the Free Education Scheme. The grant, distributed based on September 2022 enrolments, amounted to €49 per pupil at primary level and €75 at post-primary level, with enhanced rates for pupils with SEN. 13 A total of €21 million was further secured as a permanent increase in capitation funding in Budget 2024. This will support a permanent restoration of funding for all primary and post-primary schools from September 2024, bringing the basic rate of capitation grant to the pre-2011 level of €200 per student in primary schools and to €345 in voluntary secondary schools. Table 1.2 presents capital expenditure levels from 2020 to date. Capital investment in the voluntary secondary sector since 2020 has totalled €850 million (out of a total of €1.9 billion provided at post-primary level). While it is acknowledged that more needs to be done in relation to both capacity and modernisation (Department of Education, 2024), the figures represent a significant level of investment. In a recognition of the need to maintain the momentum gained during COVID-19 in the adoption of digital technology in education and continue to invest in building an effective digital ecosystem in schools, the Digital Strategy for Schools (DSS) to 2027 was announced (Department of Education, 2022). The Minister for Education recently confirmed that the ICT grant will be paid this school year, though the date for payment has not yet been confirmed. This digital strategy will support the ongoing advancement of digital infrastructure through targeted funding, working with staff across Government to ensure broadband connectivity to all schools, regardless of location, with the aim of growing their capacity in the use of digital technology. Funding to support the implementation of the DSS entails a total investment of €210 million by way of an infrastructure grant for schools, which has been delivered in full since 2016. However, funding was not provided in the school year 2022/2023. A commitment has also been made for a further €200 million for the period covering 2021–2027, as well as an annual investment of €13 million for improving school connectivity. The Department plans to issue the next tranche of ICT grant funding in the 2023/2024 school year, with an initial €50 million tranche disbursed to all recognised primary and post-primary schools in late 2021. Additionally, €50 million secured from Ireland’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan issued in late 2021, under the NextGenerationEU Recovery 13 Further information in relation to this grant is available in Circular 0056/2023, available at gov - Cost of living measure to support increased school running costs (www.gov.ie). 12 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education and Resilience Facility, was also allocated to all recognised schools in the Free Education Scheme to address the digital divide and support learners at risk of educational disadvantage. Annual digital grants as part of the capital investment programme are important and necessary to help support schools who aim to embed advanced learning management systems and virtual learning experiences (VLEs) in their schools. Free systems while welcome are not considered adequate, while uncertainty in funding, partly due to the classification of the digital grant as capital investment, makes it difficult for schools to plan. Experts have also identified a significant gap in evidence on the effectiveness and impact of the DSS, with no system-wide measures of the levels of students’ or teachers’ digital knowledge, skills or competence. Ireland does not participate in the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) and there is currently no national assessment of computer and information literacy that is capable of describing or monitoring standards (Cosgrove et al., 2022). This means there are limitations in the measurement of policy implementation, impact and practice across schools in Ireland. The DSS commits to developing oversight mechanisms for system-level assessment and progress measurement at the school level through self-evaluation processes and teacher self-reflection. Consideration is also being given to Ireland’s participation in ICILS, as outlined in the DSS. It has been argued that the school building programme is poorly funded and this topic was prominent in Project 2040 announcements. Under Project Ireland 2040, 14 the school sector is to receive approximately €4.4 billion in capital investment over the period 2021–2025. This investment aims to advance plans with certainty and deliver high-quality, sustainable building projects for school communities nationwide, focusing on accessibility and state-of-the-art technology. However, the school building programme paused in March 2023. Further, some stakeholders note that there have been considerable delays in schools receiving payments for ongoing building projects. Challenges acknowledged by the Department include demographic expansion at post-primary level, accelerated housing delivery and additional SEN requirements. The Department stress that despite budget limitations, investment decisions strive to balance the programme’s overall needs, which may result in suboptimal project timelines. According to the Department, the school estate comprises close to 4,000 schools, supporting nearly one million learners and 100,000 staff. Special class numbers doubled from 1,451 to 2,910 between 2018 and 2023. The Department has also 14 Project Ireland 2040 is the Government’s ‘long-term overarching strategy to make Ireland a better country for all and to build a more resilient and sustainable future. The strategy ensures the alignment of investment plans with the stated National Strategic Objectives for 2040 in a considered, cohesive and defined manner’. See https://www.gov.ie/en/campaigns/09022006-project-ireland-2040/. Introduction | 13 supported the integration of over 18,000 children from Ukraine, achieving one of the highest school enrolment rates across Europe. This year (2024), over 300 school building projects are currently under construction, including 34 new school buildings, additional accommodation projects on existing school sites and modular programmes targeting most urgent school place requirements. Furthermore, the Department has over 1,000 projects worth €1.2 billion in its pipeline at various stages of development (Department of Education, 2023d). Regarding sports facilities, approximately 90% of post-primary schools nationwide have informed the Department that they possess a physical education (PE) hall or have access to one. Additionally, around 5% of post-primary schools have upcoming building projects in progress that will include a PE hall. PE halls are not currently included in additional accommodation briefs, due to priority being placed on ensuring sufficient school places for all children in the spending of limited capital funding. Moreover, the Department has allocated funding for building officer positions within the JMB as part of recent initiatives aimed at providing additional support for school building projects. TABLE 1.2 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE VOLUNTARY SECONDARY SECTOR, 2020 TO DATE Capital expenditure 2020 to date (rounded, in € million) Large-scale projects €421.7 Additional accommodation projects, including modular €207.7 Emergency Works Scheme €45.3 Summer Works Scheme €41 Minor Works Grant €42.8 Other schemes (includes sites, furniture and equipment, capital rental, decarbonisation pathfinder) €91.2 Total €850 Source: Department of Education (personal communication). 1.3 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT The report follows the following structure. Chapter 2 details the research methodology employed and the ethical considerations addressed in undertaking this research. Chapter 3 presents information on the profile of voluntary secondary and other school types (both in historical data and in our sample) and the key reasons underpinning school choice in Ireland, from the perspectives of students, parents and school staff. Chapter 4 examines school ethos and school climate, as well as students’ school engagement and their voice in decision making. Chapter 5 assesses school gender mix, including the development of single-sex schools 14 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education historically in Ireland, the experience of students in single-sex and coeducational settings and their preferences regarding school gender mix. Chapter 6 explores students’ educational journeys, including the transition to secondary school, Junior Cycle experiences, Senior Cycle programmes and curriculum choices, and experiences in relation to subject and subject level choices. This chapter also considers how students see themselves as learners, their classroom experiences, teacher support and autonomy, as well as learning and other supports. Chapter 7 explores technology use at school, including the overall use of technology in classrooms, the benefits and purposes of using tablets/iPads, students’ ICT and VLE experiences, as well as issues related to technology use and the development of students’ digital skills at school. Chapter 8 analyses students’ home learning experiences during COVID-19, and considers whether this has had a lasting impact on the overall learning, motivation, wellbeing and social development of students. Chapter 9 investigates non-academic aspects of schooling, including: student citizenship education and social awareness of emerging global issues; activities outside school; the benefits of school; overall wellbeing and life satisfaction; supports for social and emotional issues; and fifth year students’ post school plans and their outlook for the future. Chapter 10 considers a number of broader challenges facing the voluntary secondary sector, including resources and funding, departmental support, as well as challenges for school leaders. The chapter concludes with some key positives in the sector. Chapter 11 provides a summary of the key findings and raises some implications for policy and practice. Methodology | 15 CHAPTER 2 Methodology 2.1 INTRODUCTION This report presents findings from a mixed-method research study conducted across 21 voluntary secondary schools, which were selected based on a theoretically informed sampling framework (see Section 2.2 below). The research was commissioned by the Joint Managerial Body for Secondary Schools (JMB), with the research questions designed to examine the features and experiences of students, teachers and school leaders across the voluntary sector. Given the focus of the study, the primary research does not include schools outside the voluntary sector. This approach allows for rich insights into this sector, but for less consideration of the wider school landscape. However, the study allows for comparisons between experiences in voluntary secondary schools and other sectors, namely Education and Training Boards (ETB) and comprehensive and community (C&C) schools, using other sources. In particular, the survey of students undertaken in this study is compared to the nationally representative longitudinal study Growing Up in Ireland (GUI), specifically its sample of children born in 2008 (who were 13 years old in the latest wave of available data). It is also compared to the International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 study of 15 year olds in Ireland and across the European Union (EU). 15 In taking this comprehensive approach, the study achieves a deep exploration of the voluntary sector, while also placing these students’ experiences in a national and international context. Between March and May 2023, the research team visited these 21 schools in person and spoke to multiple stakeholders, including students, principals, teachers, chairs or members of the boards of management, and parents. A survey was also conducted with students in second year and fifth year at these schools. The report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the findings within the voluntary secondary sector across various dimensions, including: school ethos and culture; school gender mix; the student experience; teaching and learning; the lasting impact of COVID-19 on students and schools; student wellbeing; nonacademic aspects of school life; and the challenges faced by staff and schools. This chapter highlights the methodology used to conduct the study. The study began by delving into the historical context and the development of voluntary secondary schools in Irish education. Both international and national research was examined to identify key variables and instrumentation for this study. 15 The PISA 2018 study includes students from more than 80 countries. For this study, we have restricted analysis of its sample to those from the EU/UK to allow for better comparison with our study. 16 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education Additional desk research was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the voluntary model and the distinctive ethos characterising these schools. The empirical analysis is comprised of three main elements: 1. A survey of second and fifth year students in 21 case study schools; 2. In-depth qualitative research with students and a broad range of stakeholders in the 21 selected voluntary secondary schools, as well as stakeholders across statutory and non-statutory education bodies; 3. Analysis of GUI data, PISA data and other existing datasets. While this research employs a mixed-method design, qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently to minimise disruption within the schools. The semi-structured interviews provided flexibility to explore emerging themes based on school observations or student comments, which were not informed by survey results. Similarly, the survey used in the study could not be modified to gather additional evidence on themes emerging from qualitative data analysis. Survey data were analysed using Stata, with much of the analysis focusing on descriptive statistics and bivariate relationships. Multilevel logistic regression models were employed where applicable. Using a multilevel structure, capturing students within schools, we analyse the likelihood of a range of different outcomes and experiences among students. The aim is to examine how individual, family and school characteristics shape these outcomes and responses. Model results (presented in the appendix tables) are reported in the form of odds ratios, where values greater than one indicate a higher likelihood of that outcome or experience being reported, and values less than one indicate a lower likelihood. Semi-structured rather than structured interviews were chosen for the qualitative research, an approach that afforded each participant the opportunity to relate their experiences and unique interpretations, unconfined by a more structured approach (Cohen et al., 2007). Underpinning the chosen research method is the epistemology of constructivism, which understands that we all construct our own reality based on our experiences and posits that there is no singular reality (Crotty, 1998). Interviews were recorded, by consent, and transcribed verbatim. All interviews within the case study schools, including focus group sessions and indepth interviews with key personnel, were conducted by members of the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) research team. Qualitative data analysis was carried out using NVivo, with a thematic analysis approach identifying themes directly and indirectly related to school experiences, teacher interactions and student perspectives (Braun and Clarke, 2021). Methodology | 17 2.2 SAMPLE DESIGN In total, 21 schools were chosen to represent a range of school settings in terms of location, school gender mix, Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) status, fee-charging status and school size, using data from Department of Education and the JMB. In terms of the school sample, Table 2.1 shows its current overall shape, as well as the overall numbers of voluntary secondary schools and student population for the relevant categories. TABLE 2.1 CASE STUDY SCHOOL SAMPLING Schools Schools % Sample – proportion Sample – actual National school type Fee-charging 52 14.2% 3.0 4 Boarding 24 6.6% 1.4 1 DEIS 68 18.6% 3.9 6 Educate Together 18 4.9% 1.0 2 Non-DEIS 204 55.7% 11.7 8 School gender mix Male 108 29.5% 6.2 7 Female 129 35.2% 7.4 7 Coeducational 129 35.2% 7.4 7 School size Small 118 32.2% 6.8 5 Medium 123 33.6% 7.1 12 Large 125 34.2% 7.2 4 School location Leinster 79 21.6% 4.5 3 Munster 113 30.9% 6.5 6 Dublin 111 30.3% 6.4 6 Ulster/Connacht 63 17.2% 3.6 6 School denomination Catholic 340 92.9% 19.5 18 Multi-denominational/Interdenominational 23 6.3% 1.3 2 Church of Ireland 17 4.6% 1.0 1 Other 5 1.4% 0.3 0 Sources: Retrieved from Department of Education and JMB data. Notes: ‘Sample proportion’ is calculated by multiplying the proportion of schools in this category among all JMB schools by the number of case study schools (i.e., 21). ‘Non-DEIS schools’ refers to other schools not in any other category. The number of Educate Together schools included for sampling only covers JMB Educate Together schools as of October 2022, based on the data provided by the JMB. In total, there are 385 schools in the voluntary secondary sector, including 19 new Educate Together schools with fewer than 100 students. These 19 schools are included in the denomination frame but excluded from the other sampling frames (i.e., national school type, gender mix, size and location) due to their small size and were sampled separately. We oversampled schools from the DEIS programme, as well as multidenominational/Educate Together schools and Church of Ireland schools, as we believe this approach allows for a better picture of the diversity found across 24 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education either on their personal device or a school-provided one. In two schools, a paper version of the survey was used due to issues with device availability there, as well as preferences of the school leaders. In one school, an online survey was used by students present on the day of the research team’s visit, with a paper survey completed at a later time by students who had been attending an event away from the school on that particular date. All second and fifth year students were invited to participate in the study. Students were given the option of completing the full survey or a shorter, more accessible version. In total, we received 2,243 responses across both year groups, with four accessible surveys collected by second year students and 57 by fifth year students. The overall response rate is 59.4%, with substantial variation observed across schools: response rates ranged from 23% to 87%. Two schools had a low response rate (30% or below), eight schools had a moderate one (between 31% and 50%), and ten schools had a high response rate (51% or above). The survey included student’s demographic characteristics, including family structure and parental education, their experiences of school (with a focus on engagement, ethos and gender mix) and their aspirations and preparedness for the future (academic and non-academic plans and values). Two versions of each survey were prepared, with one designed to be more accessible to students with particular needs, so as to ensure accessibility for all young people. Responses from students across the 21 schools were analysed to assess student experiences within and across the sector. Table 2.3 below summarises the two primary data sources used in this study to compare students within the voluntary secondary sector to broader populations. Where available, the responses were compared to the broader experiences of the thousands of 13 year olds who participated in the sixth wave of the GUI study (’08 Cohort). The ’98 Cohort of the GUI is not used for comparison, as the ten-year lag in the timing of the fieldwork and the large contextual and societal changes that have since occurred reduces the comparability of two cohorts across many of the dimensions we are studying. The PISA 2018 study, focusing on 15 year olds, was also used to draw comparisons between the experiences of our students within the voluntary secondary sector in Ireland and the broader population, both in Ireland and in other EU countries (including the UK). Additionally, a number of scale measures were constructed to capture students’ school experiences across a range of dimensions. These include aspects of the nature of expectations for students, the nature of student–teacher interaction, the extent of value emphasis, social and academic engagement at school and the extent to which students have a role in decision making. Table 2.4 presents details on how these measures were constructed and the reliability of the scales created. Methodology | 25 These measures are used alongside individual variables to capture diverse aspects of school climate and student experience. TABLE 2.3 SECONDARY DATA SOURCES GUI infant cohort (’08 Cohort) 2018 PISA study Study information GUI is a longitudinal nationally representative study in Ireland. It began by interviewing families of ’08 Cohort (the infant cohort) when their children were 9 months old in 2008/2009. The same families were subsequently interviewed when the children reached ages 3, 5, 7/8 (conducted via postal survey), 9 and 13 years. The study offers rich insights into the experiences of children and their families. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assesses students’ knowledge in reading, maths and science, as well as their ability to apply this knowledge. PISA 2018 was the seventh round, with a focus on reading in a digital environment. Time of fieldwork Between July 2021 and June 2022. 2018 (exact dates for the fieldwork can vary by country). Sample Thirteen year old students attending all school types in Ireland. Sample size included for our analysis is 6,655. Fifteen year old students (at the time of being surveyed) across different school sectors in 79 participating countries/economies (including 37 OECD countries and 42 OECD partner countries/economies). To ensure comparability, only responses collected in Ireland and other EU countries (including the UK) were included for analysis. The sample size included for analysis is 5,577 for Ireland and 197,709 for other EU countries (including the UK). Key areas for comparison GUI data allow us to compare the experiences and outcomes of young people in voluntary secondary schools with those in other sectors. Key areas for comparison include students’ home learning experiences during COVID-19, their participation in structured and unstructured activities outside school, their experience and views of technology use at school, teaching and learning experiences, school engagement, interactions with teachers and peers, and their wellbeing. The 2018 PISA study enables us to compare our students with a wider range of peers in various school sectors, both within Ireland and across the EU and UK. This allows us to gain insights into national and international differences. We primarily compare aspects such as students’ awareness of critical global issues (e.g., climate change, global health, gender equality), their involvement in related social activities and their attitudes toward diversity. We also explore variations based on student characteristics, such as gender and family background, seeking to identify any shared or distinctive trends. Due to the unavailability of school characteristics data, we cannot differentiate student experiences across different school sectors. TABLE 2.3 (CONTD.) SECONDARY DATA SOURCES GUI infant cohort (’08 Cohort) 2018 PISA study Source Growing Up in Ireland Cohort ’08 summary report, July 2033, https://www.growingup.gov.ie/pubs/Key-Findings-Cohort-08-at13.pdf https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.htm McKeown et al. (2019). Learning for the future, https://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/B23321-PISA-2018National-Report-for-Ireland-Full-Report-Web-4.pdf. OECD. (2021). PISA 2018 technical report, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/PISA2018TecReport-Ch-01-Programme-for-International-Student-Assessment-AnOverview.pdf. Note: The results reported from the GUI study and the PISA study are statistically adjusted using the weighting factor(s) provided by the study teams. TABLE 2.4 SCALE MEASURES USED FOR SURVEY ANALYSIS Variable name Individual items used Response category Scale reliability Cutoff point used to create the binary measure Positive school engagement (ref: less positive) 1. How do you feel about school in general? 2. School work is worth doing. 3. The subjects I study interest me. 4. I am encouraged by teachers to continue my education or training when I leave school. 5. I get all the support I need to learn. The response for the first item (‘How do you feel about school in general?’) used a scale from ‘I hate it’ (1) to ‘I like it very much’ (5), with higher values indicating more positive response. The response for the remaining four statements used a scale from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5), with higher values indicating more positive responses. 0.76 The school engagement scale is calculated by summing scores from the listed five individual items, resulting in a total score ranging from 5 to 25. A score of 21 to 25 represents the top 19% and indicates positive school engagement. Scores outside this range refer to less positive school engagement. Positive teacher interaction (ref: fewer positive interactions) 1. You are told that your work is good by a teacher. 2. You ask questions in class. 3. A teacher praises you for answering a question. 4. You are asked questions in class by the teacher. 5. You are praised by a teacher because your written work is well done. Students were asked how often the events listed happened in school on a scale from ‘very often’ (1) to ‘never’ (4), with lower values indicating higher frequency. 0.74 The positive teacher interaction scale is calculated by summing scores from the listed five items, resulting in a total score ranging from 5 to 20. A score of 5 to 10 represents the top 24% and indicates positive teacher interactions. Scores outside this range refer to fewer positive interactions with teachers at school. Negative teacher interaction (ref: fewer negative interactions) 1. You are given out to by a teacher because your work is untidy or not done on time. 2. You are given out to by a teacher for misbehaving in class. Students were asked to rate the frequency of events in school on a scale from ‘very often’ (1) to ‘never’ (4), with lower values indicating higher frequency. 0.72 The negative teacher interaction scale is calculated by summing scores from the listed two items, resulting in a total score ranging from 2 to 8. A score of 2 to 5 represents the top 19% and indicates positive teacher interactions. Scores outside this range refer to fewer negative interactions with teachers at school. TABLE 2.4 (CONTD.) SCALE MEASURES USED FOR SURVEY ANALYSIS Variable name Individual items used Response category Scale reliability Cutoff point used to create the binary measure Positive teacher expectation (ref: lower expectation) 1. I can talk to my teachers if I have a problem. 2. My teachers help me to do my best. 3. My teachers have high expectations of me. 4. My teachers are generally fair to me. Students were asked the extent to which they agree with these statements on a scale from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5), with higher values indicating a more positive response. 0.75 The teacher expectation scale is calculated by summing scores from the listed four items, resulting in a total score ranging from 4 to 20. A score of 17 to 20 represents the top 22% and indicates positive teacher expectations. Scores outside this range refer to lower teacher expectations. Positive social engagement (ref: negative engagement) 1. I learn to get along with other people. 2. Other students accept me as I am. 3. I feel respected. 4. I feel that I belong. Students were asked the extent to which they agree with these statements on a scale from 'strongly disagree’ (1) to 'strongly agree' (5), with higher values indicating more positive response. 0.82 The social engagement scale is calculated by summing scores from the listed five items, resulting in a total score ranging from 4 to 20. A score of 17 to 20 represents the top 24% and indicates positive social engagement at school. Scores outside this range refer to less positive social engagement. Strong value emphasis at school (ref: weaker value emphasis) 1. I respect people from other cultures as equal human beings. 2. I treat all people with respect regardless of their cultural background. 3. I give space to people from other cultures to express themselves. 4. I respect the values of people from different cultures. 5. I value the opinions of people from different cultures. Students were asked to rate how close they felt they were to the listed descriptions, on a scale from ‘Very much like me’ (1) to ‘Not at all like me’ (5), with lower values indicating more positive response. 0.93 The value emphasis at school scale is calculated by summing scores from the listed five items, resulting in a total score ranging from 5 to 25. A score of 5 to 9 represents the top 80% and indicates a strong value emphasis at school. Scores outside this range refer to a relatively weaker value emphasis at school. TABLE 2.4 (CONTD.) SCALE MEASURES USED FOR SURVEY ANALYSIS Variable name Individual items used Response category Scale reliability Cutoff point used to create the binary measure Student-led ethos (ref: less studentled) 1. I am encouraged to make up my own mind. 2. I am encouraged to express my opinions. 3. I am encouraged to discuss the issues with people having different opinions. Students were asked how often the events listed happened in school using a scale ranging from ‘very often’ (1) to ‘never’ (4), with lower values indicating higher frequency. 0.73 The student-led school ethos scale is calculated by summing scores from the listed three items, resulting in a total score ranging from 3 to 12. A score of 3 to 4 represents the top 31% and indicates a more student-led school ethos. Scores outside this range refer to less emphasis on a student-led ethos. Stronger school ethos (ref: weaker ethos) 1. Promoting spiritual and human development 2. Achieving quality in teaching and learning 3. Showing respect for every person 4. Creating community 5. Being just and responsible 6. Encouraging different types of achievement (music, sports, drama, debating, young entrepreneur etc.). Students were asked how their school promoted the listed values on a scale from ‘very badly’ (1) to ‘very well’ (5), with higher values indicating more positive responses. 0.8733 The school ethos scale is calculated by summing scores from the listed 6 items, resulting in a total score ranging from 6 to 30. A score of 25 to 30 represents the top 20% and indicates a stronger school ethos. Scores outside this range refer to a relatively weaker school ethos. Note: Regarding the cutoff points used to create binary measures, our standard approach was to select cut-offs close to the 20/80% mark and we applied this consistently across scale measures. Methodology | 31 2.6 RESEARCH ETHICS A detailed research plan was submitted to the ESRI Research Ethics Committee in October 2022, to ensure that the study adhered to the highest ethical standards. The committee approved the approach to surveying and interviewing young participants and the protocols for data storage. Given that all student participants are below the age of 18, all focus group interviews were conducted by two researchers. Both the young individuals and their parents were explicitly informed, in plain and understandable language, about their participation in survey research and, for a sub-group, qualitative focus group interviews. They were assured, in a clear and comprehensible manner, that all gathered information would be confidential and would not be disclosed in ways that may lead to the identification of an individual participant. Written parental consent was obtained for all students who participated in the survey and/or the focus group interviews. Confidentiality was similarly assured for school personnel. At no time do we identify any of the participating case study schools and for this reason we do not attribute quotes to individual schools (even using pseudonyms), but rather to schools with particular characteristics (such as DEIS status or the school’s gender mix). The research team followed best practice around sensitivity when interviewing young people. Special consideration was given to vulnerable groups such as young people from disadvantaged backgrounds or those with additional needs. In cases where a school had special classes operating for second and (less likely) fifth year students, the researchers liaised with the school contact person on whether to administer a survey (and in what format – paper, online, modified version) or whether to complete the surveys individually with students in the special classes, if necessary with the support of their teacher or special needs assistant (SNA). The research team also gathered information regarding any further accommodations required to ensure the inclusion of students with diverse needs. Given that the research primarily focused on students’ broad experiences at school, the survey and/or interviews were unlikely to upset participants or to lead to disclosure of abuse or risky behaviour. Nevertheless, comprehensive protocols were established in advance of the fieldwork in case such disclosures were to occur. The information sheet and consent/assent forms, as well as the introduction at the beginning of each focus group interview, explicitly stated that if a researcher had concerns for the safety of a young person or another vulnerable individual, they might have to inform someone who could help. It was emphasised that participation in the research was completely voluntary, and that participants could choose not to answer any questions or to withdraw at any point. Additionally, 32 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education researchers provided their contact details to each participant, should they have any questions about the research or decide to withdraw their consent at a later date. Researchers conducted interviews in pairs when working with student participants. All focus group interviews were conducted in school, an environment familiar to the students, and researchers were never alone with children/young adults. All focus group interviews were recorded using a digital voice recorder, transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were stored separately from the school contact details. The project team maintains exclusive control over the qualitative data. Lastly, anonymised data are securely stored on a server accessible solely to members of the research team. At the end of the study, the audio files will be deleted. 2.7 SUMMARY The study took a mixed-method approach, and this report draws on both quantitative analysis and in-depth qualitative interviews to explore how students experience voluntary second-level education and their school ethos, and how this varies across different contexts. This design allowed the researchers to reach an understanding of some of the complexities associated with the voluntary secondary sector. By using select questions employed by GUI and PISA studies, this study report is also able to offer comparisons with nationally and internationally representative thresholds, though only on select items. The report highlights the implications for policy development and provides benchmark exploratory information as a basis for further (longitudinal) research, particularly drawing on the survey instrument designed for this study. School profile | 33 CHAPTER 3 School profile 3.1 INTRODUCTION Before considering what voluntary secondary schools are doing, the report will begin by looking at which students attend these schools. School profiles vary in terms of students’ social and economic backgrounds, students’ special educational needs (SEN) or disabilities, the location of the school, and the size of the school. In the Irish context, a key factor of the school profile is the school’s specific ethos and gender makeup, addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively. Some of the variation cuts across sectors – for example, there are schools in each of the sectors in urban and rural settings across the country and schools in each of the sectors participating in the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) scheme on the grounds of socioeconomic disadvantage in their area. Variation within the sectors is significant: this chapter will highlight the variation within the voluntary secondary sector and explore whether there remains a clear distinction between the sectors. It will begin by tracing the historic development of the sector in terms of the proportion of students attending, their characteristics and their outcomes. Data from the latest round of the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study will then be used to investigate whether different school types still serve different populations of students. The current profile of the students attending the 21 voluntary secondary schools in our sample will then be described using quantitative data from our survey of students and qualitative material from our interviews with students, school staff and parents. Finally, the qualitative material will be used to analyse the role of parent choice and competition between schools in shaping the profile of the school. 3.2 HISTORICAL SCHOOL PROFILES In a previous report on funding and governance across the different sectors, Darmody and Smyth (2013) trace the gradual transformation of voluntary secondary schools over the course of the 20th century from entirely private institutions to (almost entirely) state-funded institutions subject to centralised policy but retaining a level of autonomy in key governance areas. As the religious orders who had founded many of the schools became less prominent in their running, the schools became more professionalised and increasingly reliant on government funding in the form of staff salaries, capitation grants, grants for infrastructure and other capital and current spending supports. While funding is still administered and calculated differently across the sectors, the overall trajectory is, however gradually and unevenly, one of convergence. Whether this 40 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education TABLE 3.3 PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS ACROSS KEY INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS Individual characteristics % students in full sample Gender Female 55.5 Male 44.6 Disability/SEN No disability/SEN 85.5 Had disability/SEN 14.5 Parental education level20 No degree 54.8 Degree 45.2 Economic difficulty No economic difficulty 77.7 Had economic difficulty 22.3 Home language English 87.3 Gaeilge/Other 12.7 Ethnicity Non-White 11.5 White 88.5 Citizenship Non-Irish 11.6 Irish 88.4 Religious Non-religious 18.5 Religious 81.5 Religion type Roman Catholic 81.4 Non-Roman Catholic 11.7 Other 6.9 3.3.1 School social profile Among the students in our sample, 23% attended DEIS schools, 18% attended feecharging schools, and the remaining 59% were classified as ‘other’. The qualitative material sheds light on differences between DEIS schools and non-DEIS schools and the importance of DEIS supports. The differences mean that there is an increased school role in many students’ lives, from providing food during the day, to a greater need to motivate students, to the supports provided to students living in poverty. Up until they’re 16 you’re saying that by law they have to be in here, it’s after that I’m finding it really difficult … Some of it is just motivating the kids … getting the parents in, seeing how we can help them. We’ve organised a lot of counselling, we’ve paid for it. (Home–school– community liaison (HSCL) officer, DEIS school) 20 For data analysis using the survey of voluntary secondary schools, ‘Degree’ refers to those with both universityeducated parents, while 'No degree' refers to those with either or neither university-educated parents, or those who did not know their parents' education level. School profile | 41 Dealing with kids who are in temporary accommodation, emergency accommodation, hotels, travelling across the city. Where migrant parents, maybe English isn’t a first language, haven’t been in the education system, don’t know the language. Don’t know what a CBA [classroom-based assessment] is, don’t know what a Leaving Certificate Applied is, don’t know how to apply for a SUSI [Student Universal Support Ireland] grant. Trying to heavily support those students, you can’t rely on those at home to have those skills and knowledge. (Principal, DEIS school) When you’re in a higher needs school, it pushes you, challenges you. Makes you think outside the box, makes you work harder to engage those people who aren’t engaging. … I’ve worked in non-DEIS and DEIS and working in a DEIS school has made me work harder as a teacher. …. For me it wouldn’t be a discouraging aspect of applying for a job. I think it gets a bad rep sometimes. For me, DEIS means opportunity. That mindset of, ‘oh God, wouldn’t want to work in a DEIS school’, some people have that and I don’t understand it. I certainly wouldn’t have that. I think there’s a great sense of community.’ (HSCL officer, DEIS school) The role of DEIS resources in enabling schools to meaningfully support students was highlighted as crucial: Inside in the school now we have home–school liaison. We have school completion. We have a behaviour for learning teacher. … For some students, we know realistically it’s just getting them through school and getting on to the next part of their life. And I think that we’re very good at that. (Teacher, DEIS school) We’ve had the DEIS designation since September, the supports are noticeable. The biggest single thing we had was the introduction of home–school liaison. We now have the School Completion Programme in the school. … We’re going to get another post – something like attendance officer. We’re starting to be able to plan, we weren’t before … It’s going to make a big difference to our attendance and completion rates. (Principal, DEIS school) The great thing about getting the DEIS status now this year we have a breakfast club in the morning. We have everything at the 11.00 am break is free. And you can see the students that need it the most. And they’re in here at 8.15 am in the morning, they’re getting their bowl of cereal or a couple of slices of toast. And it just, it does wonders for them in the classroom as well. (Teacher, DEIS school) 42 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education The binary nature of DEIS designation, however, was seen as problematic by staff in several of the non-DEIS schools, who saw significant needs among their students without having any resources to meet these needs. We have children coming from the same families who are attending DEIS schools and one of them is receiving home–school liaison and the other is here and is not and they are having the exact same issues. (Principal, non-DEIS school) We work with [local education body], we have a home–school support person one day a week to try and keep those students for whom school is a challenge – academic, attendance, parents who don’t value education, to keep those in school. It’s worked to our benefit in one way, school retention levels are high, but it has been a disadvantage in another way because we’re not eligible for DEIS status – our two main feeder schools have DEIS status. That’s an issue because those students are used to a lot more support. (Principal, non-DEIS school) To me, there’s a nonsense across the country about having a DEIS category. There are schools in Ireland that are non-DEIS, they’re fee paying. All other areas of the country have the same socioeconomic problems. Just because, for example, we’re non-DEIS, we’re penalised by the resources that the Department give to us in order to serve the needs of our community … But it should be equally funded and the resources should be equal to all schools. Home–school–community liaison officers shouldn’t be whether you’re DEIS or non-DEIS. (Principal, non-DEIS school) While most of the schools in the sample did not conceptualise themselves as ‘academic schools’ in the narrow sense, there was an element of the academic/practical divide, as described in Section 3.2 in terms of how some respondents described their school. The divide manifested particularly in how they talked about discipline and behaviour in the school and in the subjects on offer in the school: … I was in community school for long number of years … There’s a world of a difference between the two schools. The first school was very challenging – it was a big school then, it’s bigger now. It was a town with huge social issues, not a lot of major employers. A lot of students were bussed in. We had huge discipline issues, social issues, emotional issues. Whereas here there are no discipline issues. … The girls here are academic and even for the weaker ones, the stronger ones pull them up, they help them. (Principal, non-DEIS school) School profile | 43 We do have a good range of subjects. There’s a couple missing, all the practical subjects. I think it’s quite academically focused, academically sexist because we can’t do metalwork or woodwork. We have music, art, home economics etc – I just instantly think of the female role is in the kitchen. They could offer more diverse subjects. (Fifth year focus group, non-DEIS school) 3.3.2 School size School sizes were categorised as follows: schools with less than 420 students were defined as ‘small’, those with 420 to 599 students were classified as ‘mediumsized’, and those with more than 600 students were designated ‘large’. Approximately 47.3% of students attended large schools, 41.1% attended mediumsized schools, and 11.6% attended small schools. When school staff talked about their school size, they discussed a balance between the level of community available in a smaller school and the ability to do more in terms of activities and subjects in a larger school (an issue highlighted earlier by McCoy et al., 2019). You start to lose that element of personability. I won’t know 750 kids, but the year head has a chance with 120. At 1,000 you’re dealing with 180, that’s untenable. Even going from 450 to 600 it’s getting harder. But we also have more staff. We’ve never had tutor groups here, now we have one for all year groups. The year head has a structured system in place to keep track of everyone. (Principal, DEIS school) We probably would have less [choice of subjects] than other schools because we’re small. (Fifth year focus group, DEIS school) Most school personnel were happy that their school was at the right size, though some would have liked to take more students but lacked the physical space, had exhausted their catchment area or were ‘losing’ students to other schools (we will return to the subject of competition for enrolment later in this chapter). The bigger school gives benefits. Where we lose out here is space – we don’t have enough. There’s building on at the moment, but will it be ready in September? There’s not enough classrooms to move things around, we’re a bit congested. We’re a growing school so even when those ten classrooms are done. I don’t think it’s going to be enough. They’ll be filled straight away. (Special educational needs organiser (SENCO), non-DEIS school) Some people will say that optimum size financially is 500, we’ve 350. It’s a byproduct of where we are, we’re getting almost everyone from 44 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education our feeder schools. 450 would be easier financially. (Principal, DEIS school) 3.3.3 School location In terms of geographic area, a majority of the students were attending schools based in city (35%) and independent urban areas (41%), rather than satellite urban areas or rural areas. Commuting was hailed as an issue by students across the different areas, albeit for different reasons – dense traffic in urban schools and large distances in rural schools. Urban areas specifically highlighted the impact of the housing crisis on staff and students. We’ve two teachers coming from Cavan, one from Longford, one from Athlone. I can see the day when they say I can’t do this anymore. I live in fear of the day when they hand in notice – why wouldn’t you move closer? It’s mostly to do with accommodation issues in Dublin – they can’t afford to live here. (Principal, DEIS school) I’m spending a huge amount of time writing letters of support for parents who are getting eviction notices or want to skip a queue because of a mental health issue. They’re desperate and they’re coming to the school – I can’t help but can write a letter of support. It’s an issue across schools, especially DEIS schools. We have a large rental population in a more volatile situation. I’m seeing a lot of parents wanting to keep child in the school but not sure they’ll still be there. I have all that kids paperwork. I have one child commuting from [1.5 hours away]. They had to move, but the parents still work in Dublin so the child has to leave with them at am. They don’t want to lose friends, but they’re not going to make any down there either. (Principal, DEIS school) In rural areas, the lack of economic prospects in the school catchment area was flagged as a particular concern, with the school thus assuming an especially important role in the local community: But so many young people from this area are no longer here because there’s nothing for them. They have to move abroad, or they have to move to Dublin, they have to move to the big cities. That’s probably the biggest problem, as a school, that we have. You get to a certain point in terms of numbers, but you can’t push on because the numbers aren’t there. And the numbers aren’t there because the young families School profile | 45 are not going to be there because there’s nothing in the area for them. (Teacher, DEIS school) People are leaving and not coming back: it’s a very big challenge. The green fields far away are very inviting. We are seeing a shift back lately – the primary school is seeing a pickup in numbers. People who are working from home – it’s cheaper to live in [town], better lifestyle, better access to everything. The most encouraging part to get them back is to have a vibrant school that’ll set their kids up to do well in the future. But it’s hard to encourage people back to a town like [town name]. I think the school is the most important part of it.’ (Board of management member, DEIS school) 3.3.4 Additional/special educational needs (SEN) Regarding the percentage of students identified with SEN or disability, our results show wide diversity both across the voluntary secondary sector and within different school types. In DEIS schools, the average percentage of students selfreporting as having SEN stands at 17.7%, compared to 12.5% in non-DEIS schools and 16.3% in fee-charging schools. Among the DEIS schools surveyed, the percentage of students indicating SEN ranges from 9 to 40%. Notable variation is also found within the fee-charging school sector, with one school having twice as many students categorised as having SEN compared to another school in the same sector. Staff across all school types reported increased numbers of students identified (officially or not) as having a SEN and given support. Media reports also point to a ‘surge’ in the number of Irish exemptions in recent years. 21 I’ve nearly five years done here, and I was the SENCO in my previous school as well. There’s been huge changes over that time in the number of students transferring into me, the number coming in with diagnosis, the number in need of learning support and the number of students accessing Irish exemptions. (SENCO, non-DEIS school) I’m nearly afraid to say I know what I’m at, it’s constantly changing and the level of need inside in the school is skyrocketing. There’s more students with needs. The intense needs you’ll always have, and they’ll always be diagnosed before they get to us. But there’s more kids with more needs out there. (SENCO, non-DEIS school) 21 Carl O’Brien (2023). ‘Surge in number of exemptions for study of Irish at second level’, Irish Times, 29 December, https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/education/2023/12/29/surge-in-number-of-exemptions-for-study-of-irish-atsecond-level/. 46 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education Of particular interest, in terms of a school’s profile and its commitment to inclusion, was the way special classes were introduced and incorporated into the fabric of school life. Generally, for many schools, there is increasing pressure to provide for all students within their specified local geographical area. 22 Some principals described being proactive rather than reactive on this front, actively looking to set up a special class rather than waiting to be asked to do so: We’re unusual in having four special classes – two ASD [autistic spectrum disorder], one mild, one moderate. We’re a bit ahead in terms of the EPSEN Act. (Principal, non-DEIS school) Our catchphrase is to respond to the needs of the community, whatever they are. When we opened the ASD unit, we had the students, we were asked would we like a build. … It didn’t even enter our heads not to do it. You just do it because these are the students that we have and you respond to the needs that are there. (Board of management member, non-DEIS school) One school had the students but not the class due to infrastructure limitations: We have nine students who meet the criteria for a special school, but we have no special class, no resources. We meet the number to get one and a half classrooms, but we can’t get supports. The students can’t get into special schools and we don’t have space for a special class. (Principal, DEIS school) While schools were moving at different paces in terms of opening special classes, most schools in the sample either had such a class or a plan to open one. 3.3.5 Parental education and economic difficulty At the individual level, we used student reported data on parental education and household economic difficulty to explore the socioeconomic profile of individual schools. Overall, 45.2% students reported both parents had a third-level degree, 23.2% reported one parent with a third-level degree, 10.7% reported neither parent had a degree, and 21% reported that they did not know. Approximately 22.3% of students reported experiencing economic vulnerabilities in their household, related to difficulty in paying bills and access to certain material goods (e.g., the right kind of clothes to fit in, the right kind of electronic devices to use, age-appropriate books at home, or a suitable place at home to study or do homework). Figure 3.4 below shows the variation in parental education and 22 Department of Education (2023). ‘Ministers Foley and Madigan announce two special schools as part of forward planning for 2023/24’, https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/f1b17-ministers-foley-and-madigan-announcetwo-new-special-schools-as-part-of-forward-planning-for-202324/. School profile | 47 economic difficulty across each of the individual schools in the sample. There is clear clustering at either end, with DEIS schools and fee-charging schools; the variation across the fee-charging and non-DEIS schools is substantial, ranging from under 30% of parents with degree-level education to over 50%. The prevalence of economic difficulties clearly shows a different pattern, with much less variation across school types, perhaps signalling the economic pressures families incur in making particular school choices. FIGURE 3.4 EDUCATIONAL AND ECONOMIC PROFILE OF CASE STUDY SCHOOLS (%) Note: HE=Higher education. Compared with 13 year olds in the GUI study, significant differences emerged across parental education levels, with a disproportionately higher percentage of students in our sample reporting having university-educated parents (45% vs 21%). Notably, even within the fee-charging sector, our sample’s students were more likely to have degree-educated parents compared to the 13 year olds in the GUI study (76% vs 54%). 23 Additionally, in fee-charging schools in our sample, a lower 23 Parental education level in the GUI data refers to the education level of the primary giver, which in the vast majority of cases was the mother. 00% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% DEIS Non-DEIS Fee-paying % Parents HE % Had economic difficulty 48 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education proportion reported experiencing economic difficulties (15% vs 23%), a pattern also observed in non-fee-charging voluntary secondary schools (24% vs 39%). 24 The challenges In supporting socioeconomically disadvantaged students without access to DEIS supports were discussed above, but it is important to note that having a mixed cohort in terms of socioeconomic background was highlighted as a strength by many stakeholders. [The school social mix] is broad, fully across the spectrum. It’s a huge thing – my nephews are in their thirties now and they always say [this school] prepared them for everything they were going to meet outside. (Teacher, non-DEIS school) The most obvious strength is just that you leave school and you’re not suddenly in a completely different social environment. Your school is in some way a reflection of what is out there in the world. (Teacher, non-DEIS school) Within the qualitative data, there was a lack of awareness of the school’s relative profile compared to other schools, particularly among non-DEIS schools with regard to DEIS schools, and among fee-charging schools with regard to non-feecharging schools. It would be, it’s become more diverse within the school, you can definitely see that. There would have been, I suppose, in the past, a slight elitism to coming to [name of school], but that would have come from it being a boarding school in the past. But that has definitely gone. (Teacher, non-DEIS school) Funnily enough, I think our [social] mix is actually quite standard in terms of other schools. Although we’re a fee-paying school in a salubrious suburb of Dublin, a significant proportion of our students are from outside of Dublin. … So we’d have a lot of students whose parents are working middle class, who are taking out loans to send their kids to private education. … I don’t think there would be very much difference between, say ourselves and [the name of another school in the same area] in terms of the makeup of the male population. (Principal, fee-charging school) 24 The gap in economic difficulty might be partly attributed to the slightly different measures used to capture household economic difficulty and should therefore be interpreted with caution. In our survey data, we use students’ reports on the perceived difficulty of paying bills and access to certain material goods. For the GUI ’08 Cohort data, we rely on parent-reported measures of the perceived difficulty in paying bills. School profile | 49 3.3.6 Home language, nationality/ethnic background Irish schools, like Irish society more widely, have become significantly more ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse over the last two decades. Nationalities reported in our survey covered 60 different countries. English was the predominant home language for 87% of students, with the remaining 13% speaking 53 different languages in addition to English. Eighty-nine per cent of surveyed students identified as White, 4.4% as Asian or Asian Irish, and 2.7% as Black or Black Irish, with the remaining categorised as ‘other’. Approximately 88% held Irish citizenship, including 5% with dual citizenship. Wide variations across the 21 case study schools in student nationality and ethnicity were observed, with the largest variation found in DEIS schools. 25 The percentage of students from a White background ranged from as low of 60% to a high of 100%, and the percentage of students with an Irish citizenship ranged from a low of 68% to a high of 93%. In terms of the ethnicity of young peoples’ friends, 62% of students in our sample reported that most or all their friends had the same ethnicity as them. A further quarter stated that some of their friends shared the same ethnicity, and less than 7% indicated they did not have any friends from the same ethnicity. The fifth year group, as well as the students from non-urban areas (i.e., from town and rural areas), were slightly more likely to state that they had friends from the same ethnic background. Variations were also observed across case study schools, with the number of students reporting that ‘most or all of their friends’ were from the same ethnic group ranging from 23% to 82%. The increased diversity of voluntary secondary schools over time was remarked on by many stakeholders and was only discussed in positive terms. We do loads of events on celebrating other people’s cultures. I remember just a few weeks ago we had a food festival to celebrate food from lots of different cultures. So it feels the school is putting in lots of effort to make sure that everyone feels they belong here. (Fifth year focus group, non-DEIS school) There’s a good mix of people. Lots of religions, lots of different countries. It adds a lot. You get to learn about things like Ramadan. We have a culture day where everyone brings in food and things. My older sister is 23, when she went to school you didn’t have that and it was only ten years ago. (Second year focus group, DEIS school) 25 Note that this discussion excludes Educate Together schools in ‘non-DEIS’, given their distinctively diverse student background and because they are over-sampled. 56 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education binary measure of enrolment/non-enrolment is far from being the most effective measure of student and parent views of specific aspects of a school. 3.5 SUMMARY The data collected for this study, alongside nationally representative secondary data, highlight the variation in school profile across the three sectors and within the voluntary secondary sector. The differences between the three sectors in intake and outcome have narrowed over the last few decades, though some remain. The diversity within the voluntary secondary sector remains pronounced, with different voluntary secondary schools serving different populations in a variety of ways. The findings show diversity that was first highlighted by Hannan and Boyle’s (1987) analysis of the way in which certain religious orders had distinctive orientations in terms of social class groups, genders and curriculum. Earlier research has also highlighted the role of school context and composition on a range of student experiences and outcomes, both in the Irish context (McCoy et al., 2014b; McCoy et al., 2012) and internationally (Prior and Leckie, 2023). The following chapters will explore the experiences of students and the perspectives of other key stakeholders across a range of themes, highlighting where relevant the particular experiences of some of the key groups discussed in this chapter. School ethos and culture | 57 CHAPTER 4 School ethos and culture 4.1 INTRODUCTION School ethos, or characteristic spirit, is one of the key areas where the voluntary secondary sector is distinct, with almost all of Ireland’s schools that have an explicit religious ethos located within the sector. There is a complex relationship between a school’s ethos (denominational or inter-denominational), its role in students’ faith formation and its classroom-based religious education or ethical education curriculum. This chapter explores the different articulations of the role of the school in students’ religious development among our study participants, across each of these three areas. Especially notable from the data was the widespread perception that this role had shifted significantly over time, as well as the more contested question of how it should develop in the future. There is some evidence regarding what school ethos means for Catholic and nonCatholic students attending the sector. Drawing on the voice of minority faith and worldview students in second-level schools with a Catholic ethos, Stapleton (2020) found inequalities exist in the facilitation for minority faith/worldview students to manifest their faith compared with Catholic students. 28 However, students also expressed positivity about their schools’ ethos. Regardless of students’ individual worldviews, acquiescence, compliance and some support for the Catholic-centric practices were evident. While counter-hegemony was apparent, there was also positivity toward their school experience and a wish to be educated together rather than segregated due to their faith or worldview. There is also evidence to suggest that religious education can be important for wellbeing. Meehan (2019) reviews evidence from international longitudinal studies to demonstrate a strong positive correlation between religious education and wellbeing. She concludes that as a legitimate source of wellbeing, religious education with sound content and pedagogy, well taught by qualified and supported teachers, can be an integral part of a Junior Cycle programme. School ethos extends far beyond the religious dimension, however: Irish secondlevel schools have both an explicit ethos and an implicit understanding of what the 28 The concept of ‘worldview’, generally defined as a view on life, the world, and humanity, is regularly used in religious education. This is to refer to a more personal and broader (i.e., secular) interpretation of views on life than ‘religion’. The need for a more encompassing concept than religion stems from a growing part of the European population ceasing to participate in traditional, institutionalised religious practices on a regular basis, while still maintaining a relatively high level of private individual belief (van der Kooij et al., 2017). According to the Commission on Religious Education in the UK, a worldview is defined as: 'a person’s way of understanding, experiencing and responding to the world' (Commission on Religious Education). 58 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education school is driven by and to across all sectors. As we only looked at voluntary secondary schools for this study, we cannot pin down what is distinct about the sector in this dimension of school ethos. Figure 4.1 shows factors indicated by school principals as being ‘very important’ to their ethos, by school sector and the proportion of students within them. ‘Social justice’ and ‘sports’ were consistently viewed as very important to school ethos across all four school sectors. However, notable differences were observed regarding ‘religion’; this is identified as ‘very important’ for a disproportionately higher percentage of students in voluntary secondary schools, regardless of the school’s fee-charging status. This chapter will explore school ethos as perceived by students, parents and school staff across our 21 schools, in an attempt to draw out the different ways the school ethos influences life in voluntary secondary schools. In the context of their school’s unwritten policies around discreetly supporting low-income students with food, uniforms and books when needed, a board of management chair articulated the nebulous but vital nature of a school’s ethos particularly well: Ethos is a very strange thing, very fluid, very hard to put your finger on it. Yet you know if you go against it what happens. We would know here if somebody went against our ethos but it’s difficult to pin it down. (Board of management member, Non-DEIS school) As well as an ethos, schools have a culture: a distinctive way of relating across the school community and within the school as an institution. Of course, there is no hard and fast distinction between school culture and school ethos, as they reflect and even drive each other. In this study we report on them separately but the constant cross-referencing between the two in the qualitative material shows that they are in many ways two sides of the same coin. School culture across our 21 schools will also be considered in this chapter. Next, we will turn to the student voice within schools, an aspect of school life linked to school ethos and school culture but increasingly seen as important in its own right. Finally, we will ask a basic but fundamental question about the experiences of students in this study, one we see as strongly linked to these three aspects of school life: do they like school? School ethos and culture | 59 FIGURE 4.1 FACTORS RATED IMPORTANT IN SCHOOL ETHOS BY SCHOOL SECTOR Source: GUI ’08 Cohort, Wave 6. Note: The figures represent the percentage of students within each sector attending a school in which each of these factors was described by its principal as being important to the school ethos. 4.2 SCHOOL ETHOS Of our 21 schools, 18 had a Catholic ethos, 2 were Educate Together schools with a multi-denominational ethos and 1 had a Church of Ireland ethos. While the role of this religious aspect may be the first thing that comes to mind when discussing school ethos, it was often not the primary concern of our study participants when discussing school ethos. It is also noteworthy that the perceived importance of the school ethos tended to be higher among staff than among students. We will use student responses to a broad, open question about school ethos, displayed in Table 4.1 below, to guide our analysis, 29 in dialogue with the views of other school stakeholders. At the end of the section, we will return to the survey and look at how student perceptions of the importance of school ethos was shaped by their school experiences and personal characteristics. 29 ‘What does your school’s “characteristic spirit” or ethos mean to you? In other words, what do you think your school really values? What sort of community is the school?’ (963 responses). The responses were coded using inductive codes generated from the responses. Due to the number and breadth of codes generated, not all are reported on in detail in this piece. 79% 80% 73% 67% 84% 76% 36% 87% 75% 64% 41% 75% 60% 29% 66% 5% 44% 29% 56% 49% 37% 79% 29% 45% 34% 66% 48% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sports Religion Music Drama Social justice Environmental awareness Irish language and culture Fee-charging secondary Non-fee-charging secondary ETB Community/Comprehensive 60 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education TABLE 4.1 STUDENT RESPONSES TO AN OPEN COMMENT BOX QUESTION ON SCHOOL ETHOS Category Responses School environment Community (229) Behaviour (32) Gender specific (21) Relationships with staff (19) Safe environment (14) Community (failing) (2) Values Respect (177) Kindness (92) Giving back (13) Responsibility (11) Fairness (11) Fairness (failing) (1) Academics Academics (176) Intelligence (10) Further/higher education (8) Academics (failing) (5) Equality, diversity and inclusion Inclusion (138) Diversity (50) Equality (36) Diversity (failing) (9) Inclusion (failing) (5) Sports Sports (126) Sportsexcessive (20) Sports – insufficient (7) Sports – gendered (3) Negative Doesn’t know/care (95) Disagrees with ethos (73) Doesn’t mean much (56) Not upholding ethos (14) Student centred Values students (79) Wellbeing (28) Wellbeing (failing) (20) Enjoyment (19) Support (7) Student voice (6) Generic Education (73) Generic positive (30) Education (failing) (4) Student development Personal development (73) Social development (9) Career (4) Social engagement (4) Religion Religion – neutral (70) Religion – negative (31) Specific ethos (30) Religion – positive (20) Religion – insufficient (1) Other extracurricular Student interests (56) Music (10) Student interests (failing) (7) Music (failing) (1) Wrong reasons Image conscious (45) Conformity (24) Appearance (20) Money (5) Effort and pressure Values work (45) Achievements (41) Competition (3) Positive Quote from crest (29) Tradition (6) School spirit (5) Social side Friendship (26) Bullying (14) Friendship (failing) (1) Ambivalent Complex (25) Not all students (10) Inconsistent (4) Characteristics Creativity (5) Empowerment (2) Leadership (1) Freedom (1) Other Other (9) Wider system (3) N =963 Perhaps the most striking thing about the open-ended survey responses is the sheer breadth of factors that students see their schools as valuing and promoting. In total, the responses are recorded under 73 codes across 18 themes, with the frequency of responses within each code ranging from 1 to 229. It is clear in the survey responses, and in the qualitative material more widely, that schools offer different things to different students, or at least that the value placed on different School ethos and culture | 61 aspects of the school varies among students. As well as the breadth of the responses, the material also stands out in the extent to which the different codes are interwoven in how respondents conceptualise their school ethos. For example, one student described their school ethos as follows: I think the school community is very good. It includes everyone and the staff are always up for a laugh with the students which also helps. (Survey response) In other words, the community is created through and valued because of the inclusion of all students and the relationships between staff and students. Another student gave the following answer: Respect for everyone is very important to the school, accepting everyone for who they are. And treating everyone there fairly. Each student giving their best to life in the school. (Survey response) Here we see respect being the driving force of the ethos, linked to valuing students for who they are and also to students reciprocating this respect and engagement. While we do not go through the aspects of ethos highlighted by our participants one by one, there are strong links across the aspects. However, there is no discernible pattern in the links – respondents are piecing together the workings and importance of ethos in their own varied ways. The most frequent code was Community, which may reflect the wording of the open-ended question in the survey. The school community was treasured by many students as well as by interview respondents: We’re all one community. It doesn’t matter which race [you are]. (Second year focus group, non-DEIS school) I think the school values that it is a tight knit community, and that we are all part of a community, a place where we can all belong. (Survey response) There’s a nice community cohesion, I think the kids see that. You know, you’re having a chat with cleaning staff one minute, the principal the next. I don’t feel there’s any hierarchies in the school. It’s a big community but there’s a nice sense of community with it. The past pupils as well you’d see them around. Nine times out of ten they want to come up and have a chat. (Teacher, fee-charging school) The school was also seen by some respondents as a key part in a wider community, something which schools worked hard to sustain: 62 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education The [school community] is not like any other experience – it plays such a big role and it’s only increasing. We have parent education on pretty much every evening – we’ve had language classes, Census classes, you name it. We’re really looking to engage the wider school community. We do lots of work with the county council planting trees, we do the green mile where TY [Transition Year] students litter pick 1 km each side of school. We’re pretty far reaching into the local community. (Teacher, DEIS school) A lot of older people in town would have gone to the tech or the school, know it and attended. We’re still in the old building, so it’s familiar to them. … The school does Tidy Towns as well. We do Masses in the church too. Young Environmentalists too. It teaches you about life. And it’s good as well for the school, you have people going around town who see what the school is doing for the town or when they see you behaving well around the town, people who are sending their kids to school are going to think well of this place. (Second year focus group, non-DEIS school) There were also respondents who felt that the school was not succeeding in creating a community, or at least that they were not part of a school community: It’s quite unwelcoming to us people as students. (Survey response) I think my schools values are Christian based and morally correct in every way. I don’t know what sort of community my school is because I am not a part of it. (Survey response) That these schools were communities was evident to us across our data and in our visits to each school. The relationships among students, among staff and between students and staff drive much of what schools do and why they do it, in concert with the school’s ethos. Clearly there is more work to be done in making all students feel part of this community, especially in light of the knock-on effects this could have on student engagement and wellbeing. In terms of the moral and personal characteristics schools were trying to instil in students, and model in their day-to-day practice, there is an interesting contrast between the relatively high number of students who saw schools as living by moral values, particularly respect, kindness and ‘giving back’ and promoting personal and social development, and the much lower number who saw schools as valuing particular personal characteristics like creativity, freedom and leadership. When interviewees stressed an emphasis on holistic development in their school, they tended to see it as comprising both moral and personal development: School ethos and culture | 63 I think it’s very much about the holistic development of each pupil, not just the educational development but the virtue, such as how to interact with people. It’s very much about volunteering or being empathetic, not just to the peers but to the teaching staff and everybody. It is very much about trying to develop each pupil as a whole person, considering the ethical and cultural differences of each and every people. (Board of management member, fee-charging school) l’m always struck by a quote from St. Irenaeus – the glory of God is the human person fully alive. I also like Maslow’s idea of self-actualisation. I like the idea of young people optimising what they can achieve. Leadership’s job is to take the barriers out of the way and free them to be who they can be. (Principal, DEIS school) Key to this holistic development is the role of extracurricular activities in the schools, particularly sport. Sport and other extracurricular activities were seen as a significant part of a school’s identity, and as part of what made school enjoyable. This is further supported in Chapter 9, where we note that the majority of students engage in extracurricular activities, as also noted by the Department of Education (2021). They played a significant role in engaging students, particularly students who were less engaged academically or even students who might otherwise not have engaged at all: In DEIS schools particularly there are people who only come in when there’s athletics or basketball. Then you’ve got that in your life, you know how it is to be committed to running so how do you commit to yourself, how do you say I’m worth it. So you can use them sort of things. (Home–school–community liaison (HSCL) officer, DEIS school) We will return to the role of sports and other extracurricular activities in Chapter 9, but it is important to note here the respondents who felt that sport (or a particular sport) was overemphasised in their school ethos or overvalued by the school: There’s, a stigma if you don’t play hockey – you’re seen as not athletic at all. They don’t take into account any other sports. There’s a certain type of people – we all fit into that mould in some way but not everybody fully. For sports like basketball, they’re really good and they got no recognition. If you don’t play hockey you’re irrelevant. The whole school goes to hockey matches – there are buses booked, classes are cancelled.’ (Fifth year focus group, fee-charging school) 64 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education Many students and staff highlighted the place of academic instruction in the school’s ethos, often as part of what the school did rather than the entire purpose, and stressed many active efforts made by school to achieve a balance between encouraging academic and holistic development. In my opinion, my school values academic success as well as our personal ambitions and interests. The school has put in place many different extracurricular activities that students can get involved in if they wish while also ensuring that we have the best opportunity to excel academically. (Survey response) I think the school really values sports. Academically it’s massive as well. We have a 600 pointer every year. I suppose it’s balanced, you do the best you can do, whatever it is. (Fifth year focus group, non-DEIS school) I think there’s a good balance between education … like, it’s not the end of the world if you do badly in one test. Yeah, it’s important to do well but don’t stress too much. There’s a good balance between sports and music and academics. (Second year group, fee-charging school) However, a significant number of students felt that the school only or overly focused on academics, sometimes linked with a perception that the school cared more about its reputation than its students: The school values academic achievement and image above everything else. (Survey response) Values results. Students’ wellbeing and mental health is irrelevant in the current school system. (Survey response) I think our school is very academic focused which is a very good thing to have but I do believe that there needs to be more focus on other opportunities that should be encouraged. (Survey response) The extent to which schools managed to strike a balance between valuing academic development and encouraging students to work hard without creating an excessively competitive or pressurised environment is a core concern of Chapter 6. In contrast to those who thought there was an overfocus on academic achievement, many students and school staff felt that their school did genuinely value students and the relationship between students and staff, and that their school was above all a caring place: School ethos and culture | 65 My school really does value everyone's best interest. They put their students first, they accept everyone for who they are and do not shame people. (Survey response) It values us as individuals for who we are and what we have interests in. The school values also that we are happy and feel safe here meeting with friends and taking part in activities that we have a joy in participating. The community within this school is quite a happy place which we don't dread coming into every day. (Survey response) The positive sentiment towards teachers was consistently reflected in the interviews with students. One student highlighted, ‘I think most of the teachers here are phenomenal anyway’ (Fifth year focus group, Educate Together school), underscoring the high regard students held for their educators. Another student from the same focus group emphasised the supportive nature of teachers, noting that ‘They [teachers] are always very supportive,’ indicating a nurturing environment within the school. Additionally, a student expressed profound admiration for the understanding and caring attitude of the teachers: … I think they [teachers] are the most understanding and caring and they have such a good they have an extreme amount of empathy towards teenagers specifically. Because I wouldn't find that support anywhere else.’ (Fifth year focus group, Educate Together school) The quote above underscores the deep sense of trust and connection students feel with their teachers, highlighting the pivotal role teachers play not only in academic instruction but also in providing emotional support and guidance. Such views are shared in the wider school community among teachers and school board members. We have a particularly strong pastoral care system – tutor, year head, chairde, choiste, guidance counsellors, a counsellor, care team meeting. That demonstrates our ethos in action. (Teacher, non-DEIS school) People go above and beyond, that’s a culture in the leadership in the school. They can see, dealing with kids coming in in the morning, who is struggling and who needs help. And from what I can see that help is provided without anybody knowing about it. It’s not publicised. And that’s the way it should be. (Board of management member, DEIS school) As the last quote shows, ethos was often about who schools were engaging with, as well as how they were engaging with them. In particular, diversity and inclusion were pointed to as fundamental to the mission of the school by participants across the school community. 72 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education needs of community in setting up the school originally. That is part of our ethos. We try to not take it for granted and always build on it as best we can.’ (Deputy principal, non-DEIS school) I think it's really important that we – there is a value placed on what goes on in our schools. It might not be popular at present or the way that the media is going. But we owe a huge debt of gratitude to our founding group … And to look at the quality of education they've given over the years, I think is just phenomenal. A lot of our decisions are based on our values. … I would hate to see public policy go such a way that, ‘No, we don't want voluntary secondary schools’, and that they just become private or elitist. Because I do think they are a value in the community. (Principal, non-DEIS school) As well as the importance of tradition, however, a number of answers saw the slightly non-traditional way religion was lived in the school as a strength of its ethos: Our school technically has a Catholic ethos but in practise it is much more accepting than the Catholic Church. The school welcomes and accepts people of all sexual orientations and ethnicities with specific clubs such as a multicultural society, a gender and sexuality alliance and a neurodiversity club. Our school reflects its Christian ethos in its charitable endeavours more so than everyday teaching. (Survey response) We are a religious school … a Catholic school. But we have transgender children here. As in, it’s the typical Irish thing … It’s never just one rigid thing. So you can be Catholic and you can still be totally fine with having transgender people. (Special educational needs coordinator (SENCO), DEIS school) Religion was also highlighted for its important role in promoting awareness, tolerance and respect: I think as I say as we become more and more multicultural somebody has to deal with respect and tolerance … Part of that would be respecting other people's faith and having an understanding of it. Certainly not ignoring it or pretending that it’s not part of society … I definitely think the jury is out on trying to remove it [religion]. I don’t particularly think that that’s a good thing. (SENCO, DEIS school) School ethos and culture | 73 In some schools, students were vocal in their support of ethical and religious education: Recently we did a class on values and dilemmas, which was really interesting. We had to give our own response to an ethical dilemma. We were also introduced to the idea of equity versus equality, and I feel the school makes sure that we were aware of what’s happening in the world … the values that that world holds. And it gives us an opportunity to talk to other people about more moral and ethical things. To get other people’s perspectives on situations that you wouldn’t have received before. Which make it easier to understand other people's issues and try to come to conclusions that would benefit everyone. (Fifth year focus group, Educate Together school) In some schools, students highlighted the diversity of topics covered (in this case across the three religion classes taken weekly): The different types of religions in the world. And we'd learn about them … We do, morality and climate change and how it affects people and stuff. And they put on music for us and she just makes sure that everyone's, like, okay and that everyone's having a good day. And if not, then if you want to talk you can. If not, then that's fine. (Second year focus group, non-DEIS school) In other schools, teachers highlighted the evolving role of religious education: There is a value in keeping it [religion] as a non-exam subject, in a pastoral way. Lads open up and we can get guest speakers in to cover topics teachers aren’t trained in – important topics like consent. They have to learn things from a social perspective as well. There is a negative connotation with religion, but that’s not really what you’re doing. We are bringing in all different aspects, making it multipurpose. (Teacher, DEIS school) Although the religious ethos of most of the schools included in this study was Roman Catholic, the sample also included one Church of Ireland school and two Educate Together schools. As a minority faith school, our Church of Ireland school was mainly attended by students who did not share its faith. Participants from this school therefore described finding a balance between nurturing the religious identity of those who were attending it specifically for its religious ethos and ensuring the school was welcoming and inclusive to students who did not have that religious identity: 74 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education I feel like the ethos of CoI [Church of Ireland] kind of doesn’t matter anymore because there’s so many different faiths here. I’m not saying religion doesn’t matter but nobody cares what religion you are and what are your beliefs, they just kind of respect it. (Fifth year focus group, fee-charging school) The school values … Community is a big one. Inclusion, inclusion, inclusion. Diversity, diversity, diversity. We’re open to students from all sorts of backgrounds, socioeconomic backgrounds, religious backgrounds. It’s a Protestant ethos under Protestant management but it’s a really diverse school, intentionally and deliberately diverse. (Principal, fee-charging school) The connection with the CoI ethos is gently done and in a way that acknowledges the majority of staff are not CoI, the majority of students are not. It’s acknowledged and made central at key events but not saying prayers at start of class which you might see in some other voluntary secondary schools. (Teacher, fee-charging school) It is notable the extent to which majority and minority faith schools spoke about religion, inclusion and diversity in similar ways. If religious diversity continues to grow across all Irish schools, as seems likely, there may be further convergence still. Finally, the two Educate Together schools had an explicitly inter-denominational ethos. Again, however, they were more similar to the other schools than they were distinct, apart from the lack of a religious component: The ethos of this school is … well, the foundation is on the values of kindness and respect. So that’s something that is drummed into them from day one, that one thing we won’t tolerate is people being unkind or disrespectful. Then the Educate Together ethos is really that anybody should be able to come here and thrive in their own way. That's hard to do, but we have an ethos that you don't turn anyone away at the door because of their anything. … Whether it be that they have any particular needs or that they're from a particular background or … so embracing diversity in all its forms is definitely part of the ethos here. (Teacher, Educate Together school) The overall language used around ethos was similar across schools, emphasising the importance of centring and caring for students, embracing diversity and inclusion and building a community. The next section will tease this out, using the closed-ended questions about school ethos to explore differences across and within schools. School ethos and culture | 75 4.2.1 Quantitative material Ethics and values are central to students’ social and personal development. Students were asked about the significance of their school’s role in nurturing principles, ethical values and spiritual beliefs (Figure 4.2). Around 56% of students strongly agreed or agreed that their school plays an important part in this respect. Additionally, 48.5% acknowledged that their own decisions in life are influenced by their personal values, while 40.6% believed that their school generally shares their principles. However, less than one-third of students felt it was important that their school shared their values (31%), with a majority remaining neutral on the matter (43%). For example, those with parents educated to degree level are slightly more likely to agree that their decisions are influenced by their principles and values (52% vs 46%). Additionally, regarding the perceived significance of schools in fostering the values of young people, more positive responses are found among the fifth year group (61% vs 54%), students with degree-educated parents (58.6% vs 55%), and those attending non-DEIS schools (58% vs 53%), particularly fee-charging schools (64% vs 55%). These students were also more likely to report that their school values aligned with their own personal values. On the other hand, no significant differences were observed in terms of whether students felt it was important that their school shares their personal values. FIGURE 4.2 STUDENTS’ REFLECTIONS ON THE VALUES AND BELIEFS PROMOTED BY THEIR SCHOOL Students were also asked a series of questions designed to measure how school ethos is promoted at their school. Overall, students showed very positive views towards their schools’ encouragement of different types of achievements, with 14.4% 6.2% 6.6% 14.8% 34.2% 34.4% 24.8% 41.7% 31.0% 40.3% 43.1% 31.7% 14.1% 13.7% 18.8% 8.1% 6.4% 5.4% 6.6% 3.6% My decisions in life are influenced by my principles, ethical values and/or spiritual beliefs My school generally shares my principles, ethical values and/or spiritual beliefs It is important to me that my school shares my principles, ethical values and/or spiritual beliefs Schools play an important role in nurturing young people in their principles, ethical values and/or spiritual beliefs Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 76 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education nearly seven out of ten students rating their school positively in this regard. Similarly, students were positive about their school achieving quality in teaching and learning (61%), creating a community (61%), being just and responsible (61%), or showing respect for every person (59%). However, when it came to the promotion of spiritual and human development, only 37% of students considered their schools to be doing well in this area. Consistent with previous findings, more positive responses are reported by students from more affluent family backgrounds (e.g., those with degree-educated parents, without economic difficulty, attending non-DEIS schools, with particularly positive views among students attending fee-charging schools) and students without special educational needs (SEN). For instance, 50.5% of students in feecharging schools, compared to 34% of students in non-fee-charging schools, and 42% of students whose parents completed degree-level education compared to 33% of those whose parents did not have a degree, indicated their school was doing well in promoting spiritual and human development. The same was true with regard to students feeling that their school was doing well in achieving quality teaching and learning, with 72% of fee-charging school students, compared to 59% of non-fee-charging school students, 63% of non-DEIS school students, compared to 54% of DEIS school students, 68% of students with degree-educated parents, compared to 56% of students whose parents did not have a degree, and 64% of those without economic difficulty, compared to 51% of those with economic difficulty, indicating that they felt this to be the case. Gender differences were also observed, with girls being slightly more positive about their school encouraging different types of achievement (74% vs 65%) and being ‘just and responsible’ (62% vs 58%). Additionally, students in single-sex schools displayed slightly more positive views about their school’s promotion of various values (Figure 4.3). For example, 61% of students in single-sex schools, compared to 53% of students in coeducational schools, indicated their schools was effective in encouraging students to show respect for everyone. However, it is important to interpret these findings with caution, since a higher proportion of students attending coeducational schools are from less affluent socioeconomic backgrounds. School ethos and culture | 77 FIGURE 4.3 STUDENTS’ REFLECTIONS ON HOW WELL VARIOUS VALUES ARE PROMOTED AT SCHOOL 4.3 SCHOOL CLIMATE The distinction between ethos and climate is a fine one. We asked a series of questions in the survey to examine students’ attitudes toward their school interactions and ethos, including dimensions such as getting along with others, feeling accepted and respected, and their sense of belonging (Figure 4.4). Overall, students hold a positive view of their school interactions, with 82% (strongly) agreeing that they learned to get along with other people at school. Additionally, more than half of students feel accepted (65%), respected (62%), successful (62%), and that they belong (61.6%) at their school. Comparing this group with students across all school types in Ireland, 71% of 15 year olds in Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 reported that they feel they belong at school, lower than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 75% (OECD, 2023b). 31 It is noteworthy that onequarter of students in our study (strongly) agreed that school is a place where they feel unhappy (28%). This is consistent with the findings on school engagement in Section 4.4 below, where two-thirds of students who indicated disliking school also indicated that school is a place where they feel unhappy, leaving just under 15% of the sample that can be considered disengaged at school. 31 Caution is required when interpreting 2022 data for Ireland because one or more PISA sampling standards were not observed (OECD, 2023 – Annexes A2 and A4). In Ireland, student response rates decreased slightly between 2018 and 2022 and fell below the minimum target set by PISA technical standards. Additional analyses were conducted to investigate whether bias would result from non-response. The results of these analyses results imply that the reported mean scores (based on responding students) may be slightly higher than hypothetical mean scores that also considered all the non-respondents, by approximately eight or nine points. 6.0% 16.2% 20.3% 19.2% 16.1% 37.4% 31.1% 44.9% 38.2% 41.4% 44.4% 32.0% 50.5% 30.6% 28.7% 31.3% 31.1% 22.4% 9.0% 6.9% 8.9% 6.0% 5.9% 5.5% Promoting spiritual and human development Achieving quality in teaching and learning Showing respect for every person Creating community Being just and responsible Encouraging different types of achievement (music, sports, drama,debating, young entrepreneur etc.) Very well Well Ok Badly Very badly 78 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education It is also interesting to note that there are wide differences in student experience across the 21 case study schools. For example, the proportion indicating that they feel they belong at school ranges from 43% to 81% across schools. Moreover, the percentage of students (strongly) agreeing that they are accepted by other students ranges from 30% to 81%, while the percentage feeling respected at school varies from 35% to 83%. FIGURE 4.4 EXTENT TO WHICH STUDENTS FEEL ACCEPTED AND RESPECTED AT SCHOOL (%) Broadly consistent with the findings of the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study, among our survey cohort significant differences are observed in subjective experiences at school by students’ family characteristics. 32 Those from more advantaged family backgrounds tend to reflect more positively on their school interactions. For instance, 84% of students without economic difficulty, compared to 76% of students with economic difficulty, (strongly) agreed that they learned to get along with others at school. There are differences by SEN status, with students without SEN reflecting more positively (84% without SEN agree vs 74% with SEN). Gender differences are also apparent, with a higher percentage of boys agreeing that they get along well at school (85% boys vs 82% girls). Notably, the differences in relation to school gender composition are even more pronounced. Students in single-sex boys’ schools are the most positive (87%), followed by students in singlesex girls’ schools (82%), and students in coeducational schools (78%). As discussed in Chapter 3 and again in Chapter 5, this may reflect cohort effects rather than the effect of school gender mix per se. 32 Family characteristics in this report were captured by various measures, including the educational level of parents and whether the household experienced any economic difficulties. 26.7% 15.4% 9.2% 12.9% 11.1% 13.1% 55.7% 46.4% 18.3% 52.4% 50.9% 48.5% 14.1% 25.7% 30.5% 25.3% 26.8% 25.8% 3.1% 9.7% 32.9% 7.4% 8.7% 9.0% 9.0% I learn to get along with other people I feel I am a successful student I feel unhappy Other students accept me as I am I feel respected I feel that I belong Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree School ethos and culture | 79 To further examine the factors related to students’ experience of positive social engagement, such as getting along with others, feeling accepted for who they are, experiencing respect, and having a sense of belonging, we conducted multilevel logistic regressions. The model coefficients presented in Table A1 in the appendix are reported as odds ratios. Ratios greater than one indicate a higher likelihood of experiencing positive social engagement, while ratios less than one suggest lower chances. 33 The influence of students’ family characteristics, SEN condition and gender is confirmed in our model results. In Model 1, which considers student characteristics, those without economic difficulties are more likely to report positive social engagement at school (1.7 times as likely). Conversely, girls, students with SEN and those uncertain about their SEN status are less likely to report positive social engagement. Additionally, fifth year students are slightly more likely to report positive social engagement compared to second year students. In contrast to the descriptive findings mentioned above, no significant differences related to school gender mix or school types are found when school characteristics are considered in Model 2. Model 3 examines the relationship between students having positive social engagement and other aspects of school life. It shows that students attending schools with a stronger ethos are more likely to report positive social engagement – positive school engagement, positive interactions with teachers and positive teacher expectations. However, students who missed more than ten days of school over the last academic year are less likely to report the same level of positive social engagement. Students experiencing economic difficulties and those attending DEIS schools are more likely to agree with that they feel unhappy at school (39% vs 24% and 31% vs 26%, respectively). More pronounced differences were found in relation to students’ SEN status, with a higher proportion of those with SEN reporting feeling unhappy at school (41% with SEN vs 25% without SEN). Girls are more likely to report negative responses compared to boys (31% of girls vs 22% of boys). Larger differences were found in relation to school gender mix, with students attending coeducational schools more likely to report feeling unhappy (34%), followed by students in single-sex girls’ schools (30%), and then single-sex boys’ schools (19%). As might be expected, students in schools considered to have a stronger ethos, as well as those who report liking their school, are also more likely to reflect positively on their interactions at school and the extent to which they feel positive affirmation. 33 All logistic regression model results are reported as odds ratios, where a value greater than one indicates a higher likelihood of belonging to the group of interest in the outcome variable, while ratios less than one suggest lower chances. This applies to all the model results reported throughout the report and will not be repeated for ease of reading, unless otherwise specified. 80 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education 4.4 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 4.4.1 School absence National data show that students attending voluntary secondary schools consistently exhibit much lower school absenteeism rates compared to those in Education and Training Boards (ETB) or community schools. Despite a significant increase in students’ absenteeism during the 2021/2022 academic year, likely due to the impact of COVID-19, the average percentage of students in post-primary schools absent for 20 days or more was lowest in voluntary secondary schools (24%), with notable differences found between DEIS and non-DEIS schools (36.8% in DEIS schools vs 24.5% in non-DEIS schools) (DCEDIY, 2024). 34 Similar patterns were observed in our study. Out of the 2,107 students who provided information, 36% reported missing more than ten days of school in the previous year. Consistent with the findings from the GUI study on 13 year olds across all school sectors, students from less advantaged backgrounds, such as those where neither parent had a degree, those experiencing economic difficulties, and attending a DEIS school, along with those with SEN, were found to be more likely to miss more than ten days. Wide variation between the case study schools was observed, ranging from as low as 19% to as high as 53% of the students reporting that they missed more than ten school days. To further examine the factors associated with students’ school attendance among second and fifth year students, we employed multilevel logistic regression models (see Table A2 in the appendix). The impact of family background and SEN status is confirmed in our model results. In Model 1, considering student characteristics, those with degree-educated parents and those without economic difficulties are significantly less likely to miss more than 10 days of school in the previous 12 months (0.7 and 0.68 times as likely, respectively). Conversely, students with SEN are 1.7 times more likely to miss more than 10 school days. Additionally, significant differences in relation to student gender and school gender mix are observed when taking school characteristics into account in Model 2. Students attending girls’ schools, compared to those attending coeducational schools, are only 0.66 times as likely to miss more than ten school days. However, girls, compared to boys and those who identified as ‘non-binary or other’, 35 are 1.5 times more likely to miss more than ten days of school, suggesting that girls in coeducational schools might face some challenges in terms of school attendance. Finally, Model 3 examines the relationship between students’ school absence and their experiences in other aspects of school life. Those with positive school 34 Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) (2024). SONC Part 3: Children’s outcomes, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/916ef-sonc-part-3-childrens-outcomes/. 35 Students were asked to reveal their gender in the survey. The reference group here includes those who identify themselves as boys, as well as those who identified themselves as ‘non-binary or other’. School ethos and culture | 81 engagement, higher academic self-image and no economic difficulties are significantly less likely to be absent from school. On the other hand, those who consistently struggled to engage with their studies during COVID-19 are 1.5 times more likely to be absent from school. The impact of school gender mix persists, with students in girls’ schools being less likely to miss more than ten days of school. Notably, there are no significant gender differences between girls and boys once other aspects of their school experiences are taken into consideration. 4.4.2 Students’ attitudes toward school Students were asked to rate how much they liked their schools. In our sample, approximately 43% indicated they like their school (‘like it a bit’ or ‘like it very much’). Over one-fifth (22%) reported not liking it, and the remainder indicated a neutral response. Significant variation was observed across the 21 schools, ranging from a low of 20% to a high of 74% of students reporting that they like school. Younger students tend to be less positive about their school experiences compared to their Senior Cycle peers, with fifth year students showing a slightly more positive outlook (47% vs 40%). This aligns with the findings from the GUI study on 17/18 year olds born in 1998 and 13 year olds born in 2008, where more positive responses were found among Senior Cycle cohorts (76% of 17/18 year olds and 57% of 13 year olds indicated liking school). This trend was also noted in Leaving school in Ireland, the post-primary longitudinal study, which illustrated a particular dip in school engagement among second year students (McCoy et al., 2014). Consistent with the findings from the GUI study on 13 year olds, attitudes to school varied more by family characteristics than by gender. Students from more affluent family backgrounds (i.e., those whose both parents are educated to degree level, are without economic difficulties, attending non-DEIS schools) reported much more positive attitudes to school, compared with their peers. Students attending fee-charging schools reported particularly high levels of school engagement, at least in terms of their levels of affective engagement. Interestingly, in our sample, a higher proportion of students in single-sex schools reported liking their school compared to students in coeducational schools (35% coeducational schools vs 46% single-sex school students reported liking their schools). In the next section we report on multivariate analyses, which consider the extent to which these school context differences reflect student composition factors. Table A3 in the appendix examines the factors associated with liking school among second and fifth year students, based on multilevel logistic regression models. Consistent with descriptive findings, family characteristics rather than gender have a significant impact on students’ attitude toward school. In Model 1, considering students’ family characteristics, those with degree-educated parents are 1.8 times 88 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education to achieve their best. Differences in relation to socioeconomic background are again apparent, with more favourable responses from students who have not encountered economic vulnerabilities across all four questions. For example, 77% of those not experiencing any economic difficulties, compared to 64% of those who did experience them, (strongly) agreed that their teachers were fair to them. FIGURE 4.7 STUDENTS’ INTERACTION WITH THEIR TEACHERS AT SCHOOL (%) Table A6 in the appendix explores factors related to students reporting positive teacher expectations among second and fifth year students using multilevel logistic regression models. 40 The impact of socioeconomic background is again evident in the model results – students without economic difficulties are more likely to report having positive expectations from their teachers at school (1.6 times as likely). Fifth year students, compared to second year students, are slightly more likely to report positive expectations from their teachers (1.2 times as likely). However, girls, students with SEN and those who are unsure about their SEN status are only half as likely to report positive teacher expectations. Students with positive social engagement, positive teacher interactions, and those attending a school with a student-led ethos and a stronger school ethos generally are much more likely to report positive expectations from their teachers. The gender difference persists, with girls only half as likely to report having positive teacher expectations compared to boys. The enduring gender impact highlights the importance of recognising and addressing gender disparities in teacher expectations. 4.5 STUDENT VOICE Over 80% of students reported being encouraged to make their own decisions and express their opinions in school (Figure 4.8). Additionally, nearly three-quarters indicated that their teachers present different sides of issues when explaining them 40 The positive teacher expectation measure is constructed based on the four individual measures mentioned above. Details of how this measure is constructed can be found in Chapter 2 (Methodology). 11.0% 13.8% 21.0% 15.7% 37.6% 52.0% 45.5% 58.7% 28.9% 26.2% 26.4% 17.8% 15.6% 6.3% 5.3% 5.7% 7.0% I can talk to my teachers if I have a problem My teachers help me to do my best My teachers have high expectations of me My teachers are generally fair to me Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree School ethos and culture | 89 in class. Most students also felt they were encouraged to engage in discussion with those who hold different opinions (71%) and indicated that they feel comfortable expressing different opinions in class (72%). However, when it comes to bringing up current political events for discussion in class, less than six in ten feel they do so frequently or occasionally. Wide variations can be observed across the case study schools, with the most sizeable disparities found in the extent to which students feel: they can raise current political issues for discussion (ranging from 42% to 71%); they are encouraged to discuss these issues with people holding different opinions (ranging from 50% to 81%); and that teachers present diverse aspects of an issue when explaining in class (ranging from 61% to 90%). More favourable responses emerged among students without SEN and among those from less disadvantaged backgrounds (such as not experiencing any economic difficulties or attending fee-charging schools) or who are enrolled in schools identified from our results as promoting a stronger ethos. Slightly more positive responses regarding teachers presenting different aspects of the issue were reported among students attending DEIS schools (78% in DEIS schools vs 74% in non-DEIS schools). A school’s gender composition seems to exert influence as well. Notably, students in single-sex boys’ schools are slightly more likely to bring up current political events for discussion compared to students in single-sex girls’ schools or coeducational schools. To further unpack factors related to student voice and the extent of a student-led ethos at school, we employed multilevel logistic regression models (see Table A7 in the appendix). 41 Here students with SEN and those unsure about their SEN status are much less likely to report a student-led ethos at school (0.6 times and 0.7 times as likely). Students attending DEIS schools and fee-charging schools are much more likely to report a student-led ethos at school (1.8 times and 1.6 times as likely). Compared to students in coeducational schools, girls in single-sex girls’ schools are 1.5 times as likely, and boys in single-sex boys’ schools 1.6 times as likely, to report having a more student-led ethos at school. Those with a stronger sense of belonging at school, reporting positive teacher interactions and positive teacher expectations, and those attending a school with a stronger ethos, are much more likely to report having a more student-led ethos. However, those with negative teacher interactions (e.g., being given out for misbehaviour or untidy work) are less 41 The student-led school ethos measure is constructed based on three of the individual measures: ‘I am encouraged to make up my own mind’; ‘I am encouraged to express my opinions’; and ‘I am encouraged to discuss the issues with people having different opinions’. Details of how this measure is constructed can be found in Chapter 2 (Methodology). 90 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education likely to report it. The impact of school gender mix and school type persists when we take account of these subjective aspects of school life. FIGURE 4.8 EXTENT TO WHICH STUDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO SHARE DIFFERENT OPINIONS AT SCHOOL (%) Students are less positive about their voice and involvement in school decisionmaking processes (Figure 4.9). While over half agree that teachers listen to their ideas or opinions, only around one-quarter believe that they have a say in what happens at school or that their views would be taken into account if they wanted to make a change to their school. Relatively more positive responses were observed among boys in fifth year, students in single-sex boys’ schools, as well as schools considered to have a stronger ethos. Notably, students attending DEIS schools expressed greater positivity about their ability to have a say at school (31% of students in DEIS schools vs 23% in non-DEIS schools) and being listened to if they wished to instigate a change at school (30% in DEIS schools vs 23% in non-DEIS schools). The findings above resonate with Skerritt et al.'s (2021) research on student voice, as assessed through classroom-level and management-level consultation. Specifically, the study identifies significant variation in the use of classroom-level consultation across diverse school sectors and contexts. Classroom consultation is more prevalent in ETB schools compared to voluntary secondary schools or 40.4% 40.6% 18.3% 27.5% 25.6% 28.2% 47.0% 43.9% 39.1% 44.4% 45.7% 46.3% 10.7% 12.7% 30.1% 21.0% 22.2% 18.6% 1.8% 2.8% 12.4% 7.0% 6.5% 6.9% I am encouraged to make up my own mind I am encouraged to express my opinions I can bring up current political events for discussion in class I can express opinions in class even when my opinions are different from most of the other students I am encouraged to discuss the issues with people having different opinions Teachers present several sides of the issues when explaining them in class Often Sometimes Rarely Never School ethos and culture | 91 community schools. Additionally, DEIS ETB schools exhibit higher levels of classroom consultation than non-DEIS ETB schools. 42 FIGURE 4.9 THE EXTENT TO WHICH STUDENT HAVE A VOICE AT SCHOOL (IN FULL SAMPLE, %) In the interviews, staff across schools were generally positive about opportunities for student voice, and many emphasised that the school has devoted considerable efforts to involve students in a range of decision making across the school. [We] meet [name of committee] twice a year, start and end. Very respectful of anything they have to say, listen and discuss it, decide whether it’s a runner or not. Student council will meet the board every year at end of May. … The board hear what student council are doing, students feel affirmed … students are not cowed by going to [a] board of management member meeting, the board is probably more nervous of them! We listen and we take on board their requests. [We] can’t always accede to them all but anything that makes life more bearable for them, we try and accommodate. (Principal, non-DEIS school) …There’s a student council, and they bring their suggestions to the board, and we listen to them and we see what we can do. For example, they brought up introducing trousers. … We listen to that, and we 42 According to Skerritt et al. (2021), classroom-level consultations appeared to be less frequent in voluntary secondary schools and community schools, so they do not examine differences between DEIS schools and non-DEIS schools in this sector. 11.5% 5.2% 5.3% 44.0% 19.7% 19.4% 27.6% 30.3% 33.2% 12.8% 28.6% 25.2% 4.0% 16.1% 16.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% I feel like teachers listen to me when I share an idea or opinion I feel that I have a say in what happens at my school I feel that if I wanted to make a change to something in my school I would be listened to Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 92 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education listen to the parents, and they’re sent out a questionnaire to all the stakeholders with it. (Board of management member, DEIS school) This view was echoed by the principal from the same school, who spoke of the importance of student leadership opportunities: … We’ve lots of opportunities for student leadership within the school. We do listen to them. We’ve a student learning team, which is made up of students from every class group. And we picked them, number [x] on the roll in each class. So you’re getting a total mix … For many of those children, they were delighted. (Principal, DEIS school) [We have a] very active student body … [they are] fully supported by staff. Prefecture system, really active student council. [For example,] TY students run the library. [The school] upskill six to eight students at the start of every year. [Students are] fully in control of manning the library, cataloguing books, chasing up returns. (Teacher, non-DEIS school) However, students reflected on their role in school decision making somewhat differently. For some there was an appreciation of the active role of the student council, as well as their voices and needs being accommodated fairly by school management: The student council meet every month … They bring up the problem. [I] think school would listen. Up until a few years ago, girls couldn’t wear pants. [They] brought it up to school and [it was] changed. (Second year focus group, non-DEIS school) The student council is very active … they really have a voice. [We] could go through them for change and it’d be taken into consideration. [They will] bring complaints to deputy to bring to the principal … They’re very active anyway. (Second year focus group, non-DEIS school) However, many students expressed concerns about the limited role of the student council and perceived its existence as merely a formality. [We] would like to change the uniforms –but we never have a say … The school asks for our opinions but they doesn’t listen. The student council does nothing. (Second year focus group, fee-charging school) There’s a student council but they have no power. There is no communication with management. (Fifth year focus group, DEIS school) School ethos and culture | 93 If you bring up a problem in the student council they’ll be like, ‘oh yeah, we’ll look into it’, but they never really do … I don’t think the surveys are ever really taken into account. We’ve done a million surveys on mental health, COVID, everything like that … then just never heard of again. Nothing changed. … We’re telling them what’s wrong but that’s it. (Fifth year focus group, fee-charging school) Students felt that their teachers ‘would not listen’ and that they ‘just do what we are told’ (Second year focus group, non-DEIS school). Similar views were expressed among students in senior groups, emphasising their concern about having open communication with their teachers at school. Many issues were raised, but there were perceived delays in addressing them. It’s difficult to communicate to a teacher about the way they’re teaching because there’s a risk of offending them. … I think teachers should take in what students are saying, I think it’s just going in one ear and out the other. … It’s pointless having a student council when they don’t listen to it. (Second year and fifth year focus group, DEIS school) For many students, enhancing their voice and involvement in school decision making requires more timely and transparent communication. This includes providing students with updates on progress and the rationale behind decisions, rather than simply instructing them on what to follow at school. … I understand those things are hard to implement, you can’t fix anything but at least tell us what’s going on. It’s hard to get around to everything but more communication would be great. (Fifth year focus group, fee-charging school) They should give us the reasons why they’re saying ‘No’ rather than just kind of [telling what] we should [do] … We are kind of senior people in the school as well, and we don't want to just [follow] things for the sake of it. We should be involved a lot more. (Fifth year focus group, non-DEIS school) Overall, both quantitative and qualitative evidence in our study highlight students’ desire for a more active and meaningful involvement in school decision making. The delayed and sometimes ‘never happened’ responses, limited impact of the student council, lack of communication between the school and students, as well as the contrast between their expectations for substantial input on critical matters like assignments and tests and the reality of surveys addressing less relevant topics, all lead to a sense of unmet expectations and perhaps frustration among students. 94 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education 4.6 SUMMARY Chapter 4 provides a comprehensive exploration of school ethos and culture from the perspectives of students, parents and school staff across 21 case study schools. Qualitative analysis unveils the diverse dimensions of school ethos valued by students, highlighting themes of community-building, extracurricular engagement, the balance between academic and personal development, and a strong commitment to inclusion and diversity. Despite varying views on religious ethos, a common language emphasising student-centricity, diversity, inclusion and community-building emerges across schools. Faith formation was still seen as part of the school’s role by many stakeholders, but with, in general, sensitivity to students’ and their families’ own beliefs and desires. This nuanced view of faith formation was widely seen as compatible with schools’ ethos, with participants feeling able to draw upon the religious and non-religious aspects of their school’s ethos to inform their behaviour and attitudes as they wished. Quantitative analysis highlights the vital role schools play in shaping students’ values, with notable distinctions arising from family backgrounds. In terms of school ethos promotion, students generally perceived their schools positively, acknowledging encouragement for various achievements, quality in teaching and learning, community-building, fairness and respect for all individuals. However, they expressed less positivity regarding their school’s promotion of spiritual and human development. Prominent differences in relation to gender and family backgrounds were evident among students. The examination of school climate reveals predominantly positive interactions, with most students feeling accepted, respected and successful, though disparities emerged in relation to family characteristics, SEN status, gender and school experiences. School absence is closely related to gender, SEN status and socioeconomic backgrounds, with girls, students with SEN and those from less affluent families having higher rates of absenteeism. Overall, students had positive attitudes toward school, with distinctive differences associated with family backgrounds and SEN status. Most students valued their schoolwork and found the subjects they study interested them. Many also agreed that they worked hard at school, were encouraged by teachers to continue their education after leaving school, and received all the supports needed to learn. Gender differences were evident, with girls expressing greater focus as well as a greater emphasis on school performance, while boys showed more positivity regarding the school’s role in cultivating their interest in learning. Positive teacher interactions further enhanced the school experiences, shaped by socioeconomic advantages, academic self-image, teacher expectations and the School ethos and culture | 95 presence of a student-led ethos. 43 These interactions also reveal the influence of school climate and student dynamics over individual or school characteristics. The chapter concludes with insights into students’ positive perceptions of their voices in school but suggests opportunities for increased involvement in school decisionmaking processes. 43 The student-led school ethos measure is constructed based on three of the individual measures: ‘I am encouraged to make up my own mind’; ‘I am encouraged to express my opinions’; and ‘I am encouraged to discuss the issues with people having different opinions’. Details of how this measure is constructed can be found in Chapter 2 (Methodology). School gender mix | 97 CHAPTER 5 School gender mix 5.1 INTRODUCTION The prevalence of single-sex schools is perhaps the most distinctive feature of the Irish second-level landscape in comparison to other European countries. Regarding the proportion of students attending single-sex schools in countries around the globe, Ireland’s second-level schools are second only to Malta in Europe. Almost all of Ireland’s single-sex schools are within the voluntary secondary sector, with the religious orders who originally founded the schools driving the decision to enrol only one sex (Hannan et al., 1996). As the religious orders have withdrawn from the direct management and day-to-day running of voluntary secondary schools, and under wider enrolment or social pressure, many schools have transitioned to coeducational, either by opening enrolment to both sexes or by amalgamating with another school. No new single-sex school has opened since 1998, and post-primary enrolment data show a steady decline in the proportion of students in single-sex schools since 1972. One narrative suggests that universal or near universal coeducational schooling is a historical inevitability (Maloney, 2024); that it is a question not of if but of when. Yet many single-sex schools in our study were confident of the benefits of single-sex education and of the continuing strength of their enrolments. This chapter will begin by looking at the numbers attending single-sex and coeducational schools over the last seven decades and the cohorts currently attending single-sex and coeducational schools in the latest Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) data. It will then investigate student perceptions of single-sex and coeducational schooling, as recorded by our survey and focus groups. The views of parents, school staff and key stakeholders in the education system will be explored. This study did not collect outcome data and thus does not aim to highlight one school type as being better or worse than another in terms of academic results. What it does aim to do is present a record of the opinions and experiences of the key groups involved in voluntary secondary schools around school gender mix to inform policy and school-level decision making at an important point in the development of the Irish school system. 5.2 SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show the number and percentage of students in coeducational and single-sex second-level schools over the last seven decades. It is important to note that the 1962–1963 record only includes voluntary secondary schools; the vocational – Education and Training Boards (ETB) – schools were not yet recorded 104 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education and it slipped by accident … (Second year focus group, single-sex boys’ school) It’s nice that you don’t have to make big effort coming in every day – it’s just girls and no one cares. (Fifth year focus group, single-sex girls’ school) Activities were also seen as a strength of single-sex school, particularly in regard to the opportunity to participate in girls’ sports: In a mixed it’d, kind of, just more revolve around boys than girls. And it’s like the girls are just the add-ons. And they’d be offered more opportunities than the girls would. (Second year focus group, singlesex girls’ school) In two coeducational schools, this was perceived to be problematic for the students attending: With the girls, football is happening but not much is done, not much emphasis is placed on it. There’s much more for boys. The difference is that for the lads they got someone from out of the school to do it, they didn’t do for the girls which I don’t think is fair either. With other schools you’ll hear they’re training twice a week, we never train for the girls, just go to the matches and hope for the best. (Fifth year focus group, coeducational school) Some school staff also felt that students were more comfortable or better able to learn and develop in single-sex schools. Certainly, the strengths [of a boys’ school] are that you can engage in various activities without the fear of the students feeling embarrassed about things. For example, we have a very strong music tradition in the college, because boys feel comfortable in bringing their instruments along and playing. (Principal, single-sex boys’ school) I do find though that we’re blessed in a way because ladies in an allladies’ school are well-organised. They’re ready to learn. They’ll always come with a pen, they’ll always come with their books. There’s very little issues with behaviour or showing off. (SENCO, single-sex girls’ school) Again, however, few staff members in coeducational school felt that a single-sex school would be preferable, although some felt it might be better for girls academically or initially more comfortable for all students, male or female. The School gender mix | 105 converse was not true: there were staff across the single-sex schools which felt that coeducational would be preferable: [We have] gone to a stage where I think mixed is more natural. I can see the advantages of all girls – girls will express themselves more, especially in the junior years boys can dominate classes. They can hugely dominate classes actually. Sometimes as the hormones start kicking in, they can be a little bit intimidated. From a societal point of view, we live in a mixed world, a mixed school is not a bad thing. It’s just a matter of getting used to that change. (Teacher, single-sex girls’ school) I think a mixed school is the way forward. Girls prosper and develop well in terms of academics in single sex but mixed is the way to go. (Deputy principal, single-sex girls’ school) My own preference would be for co-ed schooling, and I think it gives a better-balanced position for young people emerging from those schools into what are co-ed colleges, co-ed workplaces. While I myself went to [school name] when it was a boarding single-gender school, and I got a great education there, I think I know enough of the world to say that perhaps co-ed schooling is a better bet. (Board of management member, single-sex boys’ school) The reasons cited for this preference covered much the same ground as the open question in the student survey: greater subject choice, preparation for the future and the importance of coeducational socialisation. There is clearly some appetite for coeducation among staff in the single-sex schools in our sample, even if the nature of qualitative material means we cannot quantify it. This chapter will end by considering possible reasons suggested by the data as to why single-sex schools remain so. One theory might be that the school community as a whole might prefer to remain single sex. However, the evidence does not support this. The majority of students in every school preferred to be coeducational, although this was not always the case for staff, parents and other stakeholders. This would be entirely consistent with the qualitative material, which showed support for single-sex from at least some staff and/or parents across each of the single-sex schools in the sample. The second reason is that the higher up the chain of command and experience the interviewee was, the more invested they tended to be in the existing school gender makeup (as with the commitment to ethos discussed in Chapter 4). One teacher 106 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education pointed to the role of that school’s trust in defining the school’s ethos, and the likelihood that trustees remained committed to the single-sex model: I don’t think it’d be a bad thing, that’s my own personal opinion. But I would imagine that the ethos that’s in this school, the trust, I’m not sure if that will be something that would be part of their view. (Teacher, single-sex girls’ school) The third reason is that, even among those who express a preference for coeducation, the issue is not pressing enough to warrant diverting time, energy and resources towards it when schools are so busy with other, perhaps more pressing, things: There are pros and cons to mixed and single sex – I would prefer mixed but I don’t think single sex is a big issue. It’s not going to benefit society as much as people think – it’s not going to eliminate violence against women, just look at other countries. There’s no evidence, it’s just opinions. So there’s no rush to eradicate really. (Guidance counsellor, single-sex girls’ school) Are there other battles in education that we should be more concerned about? Is it such a big deal if we have single-sex schools? Youth are different nowadays compared to when single-sex schools was that you wouldn’t see a boy from one end of the year to the next … Parental choice is part of our culture … Is it a battle worth fighting to remove it? I don’t think it is. (Stakeholder interview) A final possible reason is that practical constraints prevent change, even if there is a preference for it. This might include financial costs or uncertainties about student numbers, space constraints and so on. 5.5 SUMMARY Overall, the results show a mismatch between the attitudes of students and principals. They also highlight a tension between the purported importance of student voice in schools’ ethos and the fact that an apparently strong preference among students for their school to be coeducational has not led to any change in the gender makeup of schools. While the results showed some students are delighted with their schools and teachers, and felt their school gender mix was optimum for learning and preparation for the future across both single-sex and coeducation schools, the scale of the preference expressed by students for coeducation was notable. Fewer than 20% of survey respondents in single-sex schools actively preferred their current school gender mix, compared to almost 90% in coeducational schools. Teachers and school leaders in many of these schools emphasised the student-centred nature of their ethos and their School gender mix | 107 commitment to the student voice, as discussed in Chapter 4. It might be timely to put those principles into practice, in conjunction with the voices of the wider school community. This is illustrated by the strong contrast between the survey results within one school, which showed strong student support for that school becoming coeducational and this observation of the principal of the same school: Any parent who has made a deliberate decision to send their daughter here will know that they’re well looked after and they’re well cared for. I think it’s wrong, this lobby that tries to say, ‘it’s unnatural and it’s inhumane and it’s all these things’. No it’s not. If a parent and a child make this decision, it has to be respected. I don’t think anybody can railroad something through. There’s no appetite for it here, I’m not hearing students saying to me that they want to be in a mixed school, I’m not hearing parents saying it to me. (Principal, single-sex girls’ school) In the survey responses from that school, 72% of students stated that they would prefer to be coeducational, 17% were neutral and just 11% stated a preference for single sex. Teaching and learning | 109 CHAPTER 6 Teaching and learning 6.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter addresses our fourth research question: what is happening in the classroom in voluntary secondary schools? We consider: how students experience the transition to secondary school; the subjects available to students; how students view key subjects; their experiences of the Junior Cycle, Transition Year and Leaving Certificate programmes; how students feel about themselves as learners; the prevalence of different teaching and learning approaches; and additional supports available to students. 6.2 TRANSITION TO SECONDARY SCHOOL Most second year students in voluntary secondary schools reflected positively on the transition (Figure 6.1). This is in keeping with the findings of the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study on 13 year olds, where most students reported positive experiences in transitioning to their secondary school (GUI key findings report, 2023). Although around 44% of second year students reported missing their friends from primary school, almost all students (strongly) agreed that they had made new friends (96% in our sample vs 97% in the GUI study) and had settled well into their new school environment (86% in our sample vs 96% in the GUI study). A slightly smaller proportion (strongly) agreed that they were coping well with schoolwork (71% in our sample vs 92% in the GUI study). The slightly higher amount of positive findings among the GUI sample might reflect differences in the year group studied. Our study focuses on second year students, while in the GUI study, one-third were in first year, with the remainder in second year. Earlier research has shown a dip in student engagement and motivation in second year (McCoy et al., 2014a). Nearly two-thirds of students in voluntary secondary schools actively participate in school-organised afterschool or lunchtime activities, a rate that is higher than among students attending Education and Training Boards (ETB) or community and comprehensive (C&C) schools in the GUI study, just over half of whom actively participate in such activities. Regarding settling into secondary school, some gender differences were observed, with a slightly higher proportion of boys agreeing that they ‘settled in well’ compared to girls (91% vs 83%). In line with the GUI findings on 13 year olds, more positive responses were found among students from families with higher household income, those without economic difficulties and those with degree- 110 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education educated parents, all of whom tended to reflect more positivity regarding their transition experiences. Among students surveyed, those without special educational needs (SEN) tended to be more positive about their transition experiences (88% for those without SEN vs 78% for students with SEN). Earlier GUI research, with the ’98 Cohort, showed that young people with SEN were more likely to experience a negative transition to secondary school. In that study, the differences were much wider – students with general learning disabilities and intellectual disabilities were three times more likely to experience a poor transition compared to young people without SEN (McCoy et al., 2019). Findings from this study show that the gaps in transition experience are narrower, suggesting transition supports for students with SEN in voluntary secondary schools may be more effective in supporting their transition. The results may also reflect differences in SEN prevalence levels between the two GUI cohorts. Overall, the results here and in earlier research highlight the importance of transition supports for students with SEN in school planning. FIGURE 6.1 STUDENT REFLECTIONS ON THE TRANSITION TO SECONDARY SCHOOL 6.3 SUBJECT CHOICE Regarding subject choice, our findings generally align with the positive responses from the broader population included in the GUI study. Nearly 88% of the 13 year olds across different school sectors in the GUI study reported that they had choice over the subjects they studied. Similarly, 85.7% of our second year students in the voluntary secondary sector were satisfied with the level of subject choice they had. Positive responses were also evident among our fifth year students, with 79% being satisfied with their Leaving Certificate subject choices and 84% stating that they had the opportunity to change their choices, if needed. In particular, students 34% 14% 15% 62% 34% 52% 30% 56% 34% 33% 11% 28% 19% 3% 12% 18% 8% 14% 9% 7% I feel I am settling in well into secondary school I miss my old friends from primary school I am getting on well with the schoolwork I have made new friends I am involved in organised activities after school or at lunchtime Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Teaching and learning | 111 from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to express satisfaction with their Leaving Certificate subject choices compared to their peers. For example, 82% of those without economic difficulties were happy with their Leaving Certificate subject choices compared to 68% of those with economic difficulties; the corresponding figures were 80% of non-DEIS school students compared to 72% of DEIS school students, and 85% of fee-charging school students compared to 77% non-fee charging-school students. Similar patterns were observed among second year students. Earlier research has highlighted the role of school size in shaping subject availability, as well as subject level availability (McCoy et al., 2019). A number of principals in the case study schools highlighted how changing school size is impacting subject offerings: The bigger you go, the more [subjects] you can offer, the more that entices people in. We have introduced agricultural science, accounting, applied maths. With bigger numbers, the more of those opportunities you can provide. (Deputy principal, non-DEIS school) Several schools had local arrangements to offer subjects in conjunction with neighbouring schools, suggesting one approach for schools that want to offer a wide range of subjects without increasing their enrolment. The lack of sports facilities, particularly a sports hall, was noted in a number of schools, in particular in relation to how it prevented them from providing physical education as a Senior Cycle subject, or obliged them to restricted the number of (non-exam) physical education hours they could offer students. A lack of appropriate classroom facilities was also seen as curtailing schools’ plans to offer more practical subjects: ‘practical subjects are not logistically feasible’ (guidance counsellor, fee-charging school). Students in one school argued the school is ‘academically sexist because we can’t do metalwork or woodwork’ (Fifth year focus group, single-sex girls school). Students in a few schools also alluded to a gendering of subject offerings: ‘woodwork, technology, you can’t do currently because they’re “boys subjects” but I would like to do them’ (fifth year focus group, singlesex girls school). In another school, a teacher observed, ‘The lads love cooking but the school has no home economics, due to funding and having buildings that don’t lend themselves to change’ (Teacher, single-sex boys school). Most schools spoke of students who received an exemption from studying Irish. However, difficulties in securing an Irish exemption were observed across a number of schools: 112 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education She doesn’t qualify for an Irish exemption because of the flipping circular. There’s so many children with autism who really don’t cope well with Irish. It’s a communication issue. And the circular has now added that they do have to try at least two years. (SEN coordinator (SENCO), DEIS school) Schools also varied widely in terms of alternative arrangements for students with such exemptions. In some schools, students attend learning support during this time, while in others, students attend the mainstream class and simply carry on with other work. In a small number of schools, alternative subjects are offered: ‘Irish exempt students are offered geography in a small class to make up the points – it is great for them, an extra help’ (teacher, non-DEIS school). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of fifth year students did not sit the Junior Cycle examinations (81%), 45 and 88% reported feeling that this has significantly impacted their preparation for Senior Cycle. Girls and students from fee-charging schools found the situation particularly challenging. 45 The Assessment and Reporting on Students’ Learning – Junior Cycle 2022 (Department of Education, 2020) specifies that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Junior Cycle exams were cancelled in 2021. Third year Junior Cycle students received a written report from their school detailing their learning achievements across a wide range of subjects and courses during the Junior Cycle. The assessment of their learning was conducted by their teachers. Schools had autonomy to determine the assessment process and report format after consulting with third year teachers. A State Certificate of Completion from the Department of Education was also provided, confirming that the student had completed the Junior Cycle programme of study. The certificate included a list of subjects, short courses, and priority learning units studied. See https://www.gov.ie/en/circular/c797a-arrangements-for-the-implementation-of-theframework-for-junior-cycle-with-particular-reference-to-school-year-202021/. Teaching and learning | 113 TABLE 6.1 FIFTH YEAR STUDENTS SUBJECT CHOICE FOR CERTIFICATION Note: Given constraints on survey length, it was not possible to list all Senior Cycle subjects. Subjects taken by a larger share of students were selected for inclusion. Over seven in ten students in our study reported being encouraged to take higherlevel English, followed by higher-level maths (53%), higher-level biology (46%) and higher-level Irish (43%). Some students felt pressured to take these subjects, particularly higher-level maths (11%) and higher-level Irish (10%). Given the bonus points attached to higher-level maths, it is not clear whether this ‘pressure’ stems from students seeking such extra points or from their parents or teachers. In addition, around one in ten students took these subjects without being encouraged to do so. Taking it and encouraged to take it Taking it and felt pressured to take it Taking it but not encouraged to take it Wanted to take it but not allowed to take it Mathematics (higher level) 53% 11% 8% 1% English (higher level) 71% 7% 12% 0% Irish (higher level) 43% 10% 8% 0% Biology 46% 3% 11% 1% Geography 20% 2% 6% 1% French 29% 8% 7% 1% Business 23% 1% 8% 1% Home economics 14% 1% 4% 3% History 16% 1% 5% 2% Construction studies 9% 1% 3% 7% Chemistry 14% 2% 6% 1% Spanish 12% 3% 3% 7% Art 13% 2% 4% 1% German 11% 3% 2% 3% Physics 15% 1% 6% 1% Agricultural science 8% 1% 3% 2% Music 12% 1% 1% 2% Engineering 3% 0% 1% 11% Design and communication 9% 0% 2% 6% Physical education 23% 4% 7% 3% 120 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education that kind of stuff for Senior Cycle. (Guidance counsellor, non-DEIS school) 6.6 SENIOR CYLE PROGRAMMES AND CURRICULUM 6.6.1 Transition Year Over 90% of fifth year students had participated in the Transition Year (TY) programme, with about half of them choosing to take it (50%), while for the others the programme was compulsory (40%). Overall, students expressed satisfaction with their decision: 77% of those who took TY reported being (very) happy with their experience, and 61% of those who did not take TY were happy with their decision. For those who took TY, students with degree-educated parents, those without economic difficulties, and those attending fee-charging schools showed a more positive outlook on their TY experience (81% vs 73%, 80% vs 68%, 83% vs 75%, respectively). Sizeable differences were also noted in relation to school gender mix, with students in single-sex girls’ schools being more positive about their TY experiences compared to students in coeducational schools or boys’ schools (81% in girls’ school vs 76% in boys’ schools, vs 69% in coeducational schools). Across the case study schools, students and their parents expressed positive views on the programmes on offer: I think it’s an opportunity for the guys just to break from core studies and develop and grow. So it’s a breather and a kind of a break before getting into the to the Senior Cycle. I think what our school offers is very impressive. (Parent, fee-charging) School leaders, teachers and members of school boards also highlighted the importance of the TY programme, particularly in offering real world and workplace experience: I actually see the value in the course because it is pretty much about experiential learning and the boys need to be getting out there and experiencing different kinds of people, workplaces, environments and challenges. It’s a good opportunity for them to realise what their strengths are, understand their limitations, and to appreciate their uniqueness. (Board of management member, fee charging school) [TY] has been very beneficial for students in terms of the academia, helping them decide the career choice, expanding their range of interests, as well as their experiences at school. (Principal, non-DEIS school) Teaching and learning | 121 When you were teaching a senior class when [TY] was a choice, even if you never taught those students before, you would know who did Transition (Year) and who didn’t just by maturity, just by awareness, just by their decisions about things. (Guidance counsellor, DEIS school) 6.6.2 Leaving Certificate programmes Out of the 21 case study schools included in the study, 8 provide the Leaving Certificate Applied programme (LCA), 47 4 of which are DEIS schools, while the remaining 13 do not offer the LCA. For fifth year students, 96% took the established Leaving Certificate programme, and the remainder took the LCA. Among those taking either course, the majority took the decision as to which programme they would take (where there was a choice), rather than their teachers or parents making the decision. Nearly half of them were (very) satisfied with the programme, while around 17% were (very) dissatisfied, and the remaining 34% were neutral. Most considered sitting the Leaving Certificate/LCA exams to be important or very important (93%) and over 95% were planning to sit the exam. Given the small number of respondents who were taking the LCA programme (fewer than 50), we don’t focus on LCA experiences in the survey results. However, the qualitative interviews highlight some important aspects of the programme across the schools offering it. In particular, parents and students spoke with satisfaction about the programme – how it provided small, achievable modules, all underpinned by a practical, hands-on approach: It was the best decision we ever made … the biggest thing is that everything is broken down so well … everything is small, achievable modules, there is no focus on a big exam at the end of the year or for your Leaving Cert … I love when teachers teach through practical methods and LCA is geared towards everything being practical, including the subject matter. (Parent, DEIS school) [The LCA] has been a phenomenal success … [S]ome of our brightest fifth years are doing it for emotional reasons. And it certainly is meeting the needs of very much a marginalised, smaller group in our school. So I think it’s a win–win for everyone. But again, for those kids who do it, certainly a reform of the Applied Leaving Cert is urgently required in terms of the persona and the image of it out there as well. It’s not that mainstream. (Principal, non-DEIS school) However, some students highlighted the restrictions in terms of progressing to higher education, as well as the poor status of the programme within schools and 47 The LCA, introduced in 1995, is a two-year prevocational programme designed to prepare participants for adult and working life. The LCA is taken by about 5% of the cohort. While certification in the LCA does not qualify for direct entry to third-level courses, students who successfully complete the programme are able to proceed to many PLC courses. 122 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education society more widely. Earlier research has shown the implications for student decision-making, and for student outcomes, with LCA programme leavers much less likely to realise their goals and experiencing higher unemployment levels, levels which have risen disproportionately over time (McCoy et al., 2014a): LCA is so looked down upon first of all, within the students, within the school. Everybody knows LCA is looked down upon. And even teachers look down upon it, students look down upon it. LCA also – they’re like, further education, that’s an option. But they need to go and do a PLC [Post-Leaving Certificate] on top of that. And they need to go and do more college. (Fifth year focus group, DEIS school) I met with students who struggled in JC [Junior Cycle] at the end of TY [Transition Year] to see would they be interested in doing LCA because academically they weren’t that strong. And it was, ‘no way, I’m not that stupid’. Now three-quarters of the way through fifth year those students are really struggling academically, maybe I should have talked to them a bit more about it. It’s that in between, that they see LCA as for the dropouts and the Leaving Cert as the only route. (Teacher, non-DEIS school) While two schools had plans to introduce the programme next year, a number of schools noted a fall in numbers taking LCA: I think maybe the way LCA is perceived, parents don’t perceive it as a proper Leaving Cert. Maybe it’s something to do with what we are offering here – to me they are in class too much, sitting down reading stuff rather than being activity focused and practical. I would love to see them out constructing a poly-tunnel, planting stuff. (Guidance counsellor, non-DEIS school) One school offered the programme every second year due to the small numbers choosing to do it. While this gave every student the option to do it, it also meant some students didn’t get to avail of TY if they wanted to participate in LCA while others had to do TY even where they did not want to. Finally, school and non-school stakeholders highlighted the need for an integrated Senior Cycle programme, incorporating aspects of the LCA programme into one mainstream programme. There are plans for greater flexibility around LCA student access to Leaving Cert maths, modern foreign languages and (forthcoming) social, personal and health education (SPHE), and our findings highlight that these improvements will greatly increase buy-in from students who would benefit from the programme. These changes will also mean a need for assessment of staff resourcing requirements. Teaching and learning | 123 The LCA model is not helping, it hasn’t been reviewed in 20 plus years. Students are regressing after Junior Cycle, especially students doing Level 1 or 2. I would love to see a much more integrated approach – LCA English or maths but LC geography … [In LCA] they’re completely split and I think that’s completely the wrong message. And that’s very challenging for those students. It puts off students who could benefit from that programme … It can compound the disadvantage for that child – especially for a SEN student, or a student from the target DEIS background. (Principal, DEIS school) 6.6.3 Assessment at Senior Cycle Earlier research has highlighted that the terminal, largely written examinationbased nature of Leaving Certificate assessment, coupled with its high-stakes character, profoundly influences the nature of learning and skills development offered to young people (McCoy et al., 2019). However, there has been an ongoing shift towards multiple assessment modes, and it can be noted the vast majority of subjects at Leaving Certificate level now have either a practical or project-based second assessment component, and that just six subjects will rely solely on a final exam in 2024. School leaders and teachers were keen to highlight the positive impact of this diversification in assessment approaches at Senior Cycle: I’m lucky in my subject that the project is worth 40% for DCG for Leaving Cert and then for construction, 50% of the grade is for projects as well. And I think that shows a better – it’s a better assessment tool really, to make an assessment for learning. (Teacher, DEIS school) Many of the case study schools provided Level 2 programmes at Junior Cycle, and a small number offered Level 1 also, while a few schools provided a hybrid approach: Now, we kind of do a hybrid here. Mostly Level 2 in life skills or being part of this community. Level 1, numeracy, literacy. Level 1, short courses in Food, Glorious Food and Around the World in Eighty Days. But I do love it. It’s a fabulous programme. (Special class teacher, nonDEIS school) A key Issue for these schools related to the lack of progression opportunities for students taking Level 1 and Level 2 programmes: [In terms of] Level 1 and 2, It would be great to have a Level 4 learning programme for the students who are moving on to Senior Cycle, they are not always able for LCA. There is a cohort of students who are not able for a Level 5 and it would be lovely to see a Level 4 or equivalent 124 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education programme for those students. … [Reforms at Junior Cycle] have increased the gap between Junior and Senior Cycle and they just cannot cope with that jump. For the really weak student, it hasn’t helped immensely. (SENCO, non-DEIS school) The biggest problem is that there is no follow up in the Leaving Cert. And the kids are dragged through a Leaving Cert that they cannot do. And their mental health is really struggling. And I find it absolutely atrocious to put a thing into place in Junior Cycle if you haven’t put in place the follow up in the Senior Cycle. It is a sin for these children. And it is the fault of the Department for Education for not providing a programme that is a follow up programme for Senior Cycle for Level 2. (SENCO, DEIS school) But the Department has really let us down here because we’ve all these students coming up through, following a Level 2, get to Senior Cycle and we don’t have anything that’s appropriate for them. … It is a huge gap. And logistically it’s a huge challenge for us. Are we doing the right thing by the students? Are we teaching them the right things? Our main focus with these is focusing on life skills and social skills and working in some kind of work placement that’s appropriate to them. (SENCO, non-DEIS school) It should be noted here that Level 1 and Level 2 Senior Cycle progression modules are currently under development and are to be implemented soon. Our findings show the importance of implementing these modules quickly and effectively to ensure students are able to access a suitable curriculum at Senior Cycle. 6.7 ACADEMIC SELF-IMAGE Academic self-image is a much-studied concept in educational research, given its powerful role in student engagement and achievement (Marsh et al., 2019; Carroll et al., 2022). Academic self-image was assessed based on students’ self-reports regarding their exam performance compared to their peers. As shown in Figure 6.3, just over half described their exam performance as ‘above average’ or ‘just above average’ (51%). The pattern holds across different year groups. Significant differences, however, emerged based on students’ SEN status and socioeconomic background. Students without SEN and those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, such as having degree-educated parents (62% vs 43%), experiencing no economic difficulties (54% vs 41%) and attending fee-charging schools (63% vs 48%), showed much higher levels of positivity regarding their exam performance compared to their peers. Boys are slightly more positive about their exam Teaching and learning | 125 performance than girls (54% of boys described their exam performance as ‘above average’, compared to 49% of girls). FIGURE 6.3 ACADEMIC SELF-IMAGE OF STUDENTS Table A8 in the appendix investigates factors associated with students’ academic self-image among second and fifth year students using logistic regression models. Consistent with descriptive findings, gender, SEN and family background have a significant impact on students’ academic self-image. In Model 1 considering student characteristics, girls, students with SEN and those uncertain about their SEN status are much less likely to have an above-average academic self-image (0.5 times, 0.3 times, and 0.4 times as likely, respectively). Those with universityeducated parents and no economic difficulties, by contrast, are significantly more likely to report a higher academic self-image (2.1 times and 1.8 times as likely). In Model 2, accounting for school characteristics, students in fee-charging schools are substantially more likely to report a higher academic self-image compared to their peers in non-fee-charging schools (1.8 as likely). School gender mix does not appear to play a role here. Finally, examining the relationship between students’ academic self-image and other aspects of school life in Model 3, those with positive school engagement, positive teacher interactions and positive teacher expectations are more likely to report a higher academic self-image. Conversely, those who experienced negative teacher interactions (e.g., being given out to for misbehaving in class or untidy work) and those who missed more than ten school days are much less likely to feel that they perform better than average. Interestingly, fifth year students are slightly less likely to report a high academic self-image compared to second year students (0.91 times as likely). 21% 21% 21% 32% 27% 30% 35% 39% 37% 9% 9% 9% 4% 3% 3% Second year Fifth year On average - Voluntary secondary Above average Just above average Average Just below average Below average 126 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education Wide variation can also be observed across the case study schools, ranging from a low of 38% to a high of 71% of students describing themselves as ‘above average’ or ‘just above average’. This suggests that it is not just their classmates they are comparing themselves to, but to students in other schools as well, as well as their own school against other schools. The focus groups with students highlighted variation in the extent of academic pressure across the schools. Some students spoke of being expected to do their best, and work to their level, while others were acutely aware of the recognition of academic excellence and a perceived unfairness around that: Last year we had a ceremony and they brought back last year’s Leaving Certs and it was as if it was a competition. Whoever got over 550 [points], your name was mentioned … It was like it was one big race instead of just you studied and you got what you wanted … The rest didn’t matter, just the ones who got good points, who give the school a good reputation. Say I get 450 in my Leaving, you won’t hear my name but let’s say you get 600 you’ll be back here, pictures on Instagram and an award. (Fifth year focus group, non-DEIS school) However, achievement in the widest sense was seen as being recognised across several schools: Student success, be that academically or sporting … every achievement is acknowledged. … It doesn’t even matter if it is in school, if you achieve outside school, it is still recognised. (Fifth year focus group, DEIS school) 6.8 TEACHING AND LEARNING While students expressed positive views about teachers being effective in explaining things to them, overall they reported a strong focus on more traditional teaching methodologies (Figure 6.4). A significant majority of students reported copying notes from the board (94%) and teachers doing most of the talking (94%). Just under four in ten reported receiving feedback from teachers. Although most students felt that their teachers ‘explain things really well’ (78%), students felt that they had limited opportunities for active learning. Just under half of students reported that they regularly express their opinions (49%), while fewer engage in class activities like debates, presentations or role-play (19%), participate in projectbased learning (21%), or demonstrate their learning in different ways (34%). Internet usage in class by teachers was prevalent, with an average rate of 91%, ranging from 84% to 99% across case study schools. The use of computers or Teaching and learning | 127 tablets by students was much lower (15% and 35%, respectively). Notably, wide variations are observed across the 21 case study schools in terms of the use of personal devices, with 7 schools having a notably higher rate of using personal devices in class and the remainder with a relatively low use of personal devices in class. 48 Overall, fifth year students are more positive about their learning experiences at school than second year students. For example, 83% of the fifth year students found their teachers ‘explain things really well’, compared to 74% of second year students. Differences by gender or family characteristics are not noteworthy. Fee-charging school students (46%), as well as students from single-sex girls’ schools (44%), were more likely to participate in groupwork with other students compared to students from non-fee-charging schools (35%), boys’ schools (32%) and co-educational schools (32%). These findings have implications for teacher professional development, which we discuss in Chapter 11. FIGURE 6.4 STUDENT REPORTS ON FREQUENCY OF DIFFERENT TEACHING AND LEARNING APPROACHES During the focus groups, students spoke of what helped them to learn at school. A number of common themes emerged, with many centring around the nature of 48 Schools where over 40% of students used tablets, iPads or computers at least three or four times a week are classified as schools with a high level of personal device use. 70% 59% 14% 22% 10% 9% 5% 5% 9% 27% 7% 74% 24% 36% 35% 56% 30% 27% 14% 17% 25% 8% 8% 18% 5% 5% 40% 19% 44% 48% 44% 45% 37% 17% 36% 7% 12% 3% 16% 16% 37% 33% 29% 48% 49% Copy notes from the board Teacher does most of the talking Get a chance to express my opinions in class The teacher explains things well The teacher gives me feedback on how I’m doing I work in a group with other students We do activities in class (e.g. debates, presentations) Participate in project-based learning Show what I have learned in different ways We use tablets/iPads in class We use computers in class The teacher uses the internet in class Daily Quite regularly Now and again Never/hardly ever 128 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education interaction with teachers and the use of more collaborative approaches in the classroom: When the teacher is talking to you and not at you … when they are talking with you, then I am actually learning, like it’s a conversation. (Fifth year focus group, non-DEIS school) In my music class, we all sit at one table, around the teacher’s desk. So it is more of a conversation than a lesson. (Fifth year focus group, DEIS school) A [good teacher is a] person who explains stuff well, like takes time explaining. (Second year focus group, DEIS school) I know myself I learn better when a teacher asks you a question on the spot, because it goes into your head and you would be so surprised [at your learning]. (Second year focus group, DEIS school) I feel like teachers need to engage students more, because the more I engage with the class, or the more somebody’s talking to me about it, I’m going to pay attention. If I’m just sitting there at the back of the classroom, not being spoken to, or not engaging in the conversations, or if there’s questions being asked, I’m not going to be able to learn, because that is how you learn. You learn by speaking, you don’t learn by listening. Because half of it is going in one ear and out the other. (Fifth year focus group, DEIS school) More interactive styles were frequently highlighted – across different settings students were vocal on the value of more interactive teaching approaches: Teachers need to do more group work to get us paying attention, everyone’s always dozing off. Practical things too so you’re not just writing notes. Really boring, writing notes from slides. I wish we had more fun so we could get more interactive. (Second year focus group, non-DEIS school) Students also felt that ‘formulaic’ approaches were less effective, and they valued learning material that would be useful in their lives/careers: I don’t like the formulaic approach to teaching … I feel a lot of formulaic approaches to teaching don’t really work. I’d rather get right into it. If the teacher tries to follow a formula it doesn’t really work for them, it’s much better when they do it their own way. (Fifth year focus group, DEIS school) Teaching and learning | 129 Students spoke at length about what they think makes for a good teacher. Again, the nature of engagement and interaction with students was key in student reflections: Good teachers are nicer. A good teacher would engage with the class, kind of act as if they’re one of them but still has authority. It’s a big thing to be able to motivate people. They make sure you’re allowed to ask questions. We have a lot of good teachers. (Fifth year focus group, non-DEIS school) As discussed in Chapter 3, respect featured prominently in students’ comments; students value teachers who listen to what they have to say: And this teacher, she sits down at the table, at your level, and she talks, and she discusses, and she’ll take your information. And she’ll never say that you have a bad opinion. If you come up with something and you’re, like, ‘Oh, I don’t really know if this is the right thing but, like, I was kind of feeling like this meant this,’ she will take it on the chin. (Fifth year focus group, fee charging school) A good class is teacher and student going back and forth … [I] feel like we have such a close bond with teachers that I feel comfortable having the chats. Some teachers, not all teachers. There’s just a really nice class atmosphere. You can just kind of talk about anything with them. A class feels more like a focus group, like what we’re doing right now. You can discuss, you understand it more because you can just freely, you’re not scared to say something. It’s a conversation instead of being spoken to. It’s when the teacher has the same respect for you. (Fifth year focus group, fee charging school) Teachers who were seen as having a passion for their subject were also viewed as more effective teachers: I think if a teacher has a passion for the subject that they’re teaching and you can pick up on that passion, it is so much easier to get engrossed in that subject as well. And when a teacher has that passion, it kind of shows that they want you to know the information, they want to introduce the subject to you and they want to teach it to you. (Fifth year focus group, non-DEIS school) Effective classroom management also featured in students’ discussions of good teaching: 232 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education use of digital technologies to support teaching, learning and assessment for all learners; the integration of digital skills across the programme including opportunities for student teachers to explore new and emerging technologies. The extent to which these developments will provide the necessary professional development opportunities for new teachers remains to be seen. The results of a system-wide report on the implementation of the Céím standards (to be available in the summer of 2024) will be important in this regard. It is interesting to note that the report will include a particular focus on inclusive education and global citizenship education, two areas highlighted in this study. 11.3.4 Wider civic, cultural and climate education Overall, students across voluntary secondary schools did not seem to be engaged in activities that promote global competence, but largely consider themselves as being respectful towards people from other cultures. Overall, the evidence supports the argument for a greater focus on civic and cultural education. We also observe a clear disparity between students’ awareness of key global issues and their actual engagement. This knowledge–action gap, especially in terms of students’ civic engagement, is not unique to Ireland and is closely tied to students’ socioeconomic backgrounds, with low levels of engagement being more pronounced among students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Jennings, 2019; McFarland and Starmanns, 2009; Levinson, 2004). Closing this knowledge–action gap requires targeted, relevant and carefully designed educational programmes. For instance, a study by Mooney et al. (2022) on college students in the US found that a course focused on climate change, compared to a traditional introductory meteorology course, encouraged significant behaviour changes. Action-related components can be further enhanced when combined with appropriate and democratic learning, as suggested by Deisenrieder et al.’s 2020 study on youth in secondary schools in Austria and Germany. Students’ meaningful and active participation also requires programmes to: be experiential; be grounded in global knowledge in concepts of citizenship; help students understand the challenges and how they might contribute to solutions; and teach them specific techniques to address these challenges (Lorenzini, 2013; Levinson, 2004). Programmes that provide factual knowledge, along with activities such as discussion and debate of critical issues, as well as quality extracurricular and student government activities, also prove effective in encouraging students’ active civic participation (Youniss, 2011). 11.3.5 Inclusion in schools Students, staff and wider stakeholders spoke repeatedly of the importance of inclusion in schools. For many students, they spoke of their school’s ethos as embodying inclusion and inclusive values. Researchers have been increasingly Discussion and conclusion | 233 debating what inclusion should look like, particularly in terms of supporting students with additional educational needs. Commentators have suggested that the proliferation of special classes creates a tension with policy objectives around inclusion (Kenny et al., 2020; McCoy et al., 2016). Students themselves valued being withdrawn in small groups for extra support, rather than more fixed and larger groupings. In terms of defining inclusion, Koutsouris (2019) argues that in order to achieve inclusion in education, a top–down approach influenced by national and international policy and a rights discourse might not be sufficient; this is because inclusion processes also operate at the level of everyday social interaction where policy has less influence. Such processes though are less explored or even ignored by the inclusion literature, as they are often seen as questioning or threatening inclusion (Slee, 2018). The lack of awareness of disability may stem from a lack of understanding regarding what constitutes a disability (Eccles et al., 2018; Abernathy and Taylor, 2009), and is usually accompanied by concerns that disclosure will negatively impact their lives, even if they are aware. Our model results consistently show that students who are unsure about their SEN status share similar negative responses with their peers who have identified themselves as having SEN in various aspects, such as school engagement and academic self-image. Those who are uncertain about their SEN status may include students who are receiving support but are unaware of their SEN status or students who need support but have not been identified as such, with the latter group being more concerning. Given the limitations of current data, we cannot differentiate between these two groups. Future research is needed to unpack this group further. 11.3.6 Ensuring access to enriching activities and positive education programmes This study has highlighted how school infrastructural deficits and teacher supply problems are impacting on the capacity of schools to offer a diversity of curricular and extracurricular activities. Harford and Fleming (2023) note that while the issue of a steady supply of teachers has been a feature of the evolving complexion of the Irish educational landscape for decades, the problem has become more pronounced in recent years. Despite this accentuation, there has been a reluctance at a policy level to engage with meaningful dialogue and action, which risks irrevocably damaging the profession and ultimately the education system. In addition, gendering in the nature of access to extracurricular sports, in particular, and in terms of what sports are valued across the school community, means that teenage girls and boys can have different sports opportunities and recognition for their achievements. In line with earlier work, there appears to be a normalisation of physical differences between boys and girls as the basis for unequal recognition and resourcing of girls’ sport in certain, particularly coeducational, schools (McSharry, 2017). These issues require a twin policy response: resources to 234 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education support extracurricular provision across schools and guidelines to support gender equality in provision and recognition within coeducational schools. According to the Department of Education and Skills (2019), wellbeing is comprised of many interrelated aspects, including being active, responsible, connected, resilient, appreciated, respected and aware. The Wellbeing Policy Statement and Framework for Practice (Department of Education and Skills, 2019) recognises that wellbeing does not necessarily mean the absence of stress, or negative emotions in life, and that people’s experience of wellbeing may vary, with everyone experiencing vulnerability at some stages in their journey through life. There has also been a growing focus on the role of affective factors in school leadership, and in the change-management process in particular. A focus on areas such as processing emotional self-regulation, capacity to build trust, relationshipbuilding, communicating effectively and managing conflict, can support affective capacity-building for school leaders (Redmond, 2016). High levels of anxiety and stress among students were repeatedly reported in this research. Stakeholders and experts continue to emphasise the impact of COVID-19 on young people’s mental health, 66 highlighting dramatic increases in referrals to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), as well as questions over the capacity of agencies like the National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS), CAMHS and the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) to respond to need. Similar levels of psychological distress are evident in other countries (Allen et al., 2023; Nolan and Smyth, 2021). High levels of unmet demand for child and adolescent health services in Ireland have been clearly documented (Brick et al., 2020), with waiting lists likely to have grown considerably over recent years. Additional supports were provided in Budget 2023 to alleviate the cost of living for students, as well as €5 million for mental health supports for the 2022/2023 academic year. However, it is likely that much greater funding will be required to provide adequate preventive and early interventions as well as treatment in schools and other settings. To better support student wellbeing at school, educationalists have pointed to growing interest in school-based ‘positive education’ programmes, which focus on helping young people to flourish in life using best practices in education. Socioemotional learning curricula that aim to explicitly teach coping skills and resilience, and raise awareness of the importance of students’ strengths, selfdetermination, positive relationships and emotions, are becoming more mainstream within schools (Rickard et al., 2023). The wellbeing programme at 66 Twohig, A., E. Barrett, F. McNicholas, K. Moore and M. O’Sullivan (2023). ‘Young people and the mental health crisis’, Letters, Irish Times, 6 January, https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/2023/01/06/young-people-and-mentalhealth-crisis/. Discussion and conclusion | 235 Junior Cycle level also has an important role to play and we saw evidence of the benefits across the case study schools. Various school-based programmes, guidelines and initiatives have been established to support students’ wellbeing at both primary and post-primary level. 67 Examples include the Friends programmes developed by NEPS to help students manage anxiety and develop mental resilience, the Setting Up a Social Skills Training Group programme, which facilitates schools in enhancing students’ social and behavioural skills, and the Health Service Executive (HSE) initiative Mind Our Minds, promoting mental health among young people in their schools and local communities. What this study has showed more than anything is the importance of social connectedness within and beyond the school community in fostering student wellbeing and development. Students attending schools with a stronger ethos, and those with positive school engagement, report higher levels of life satisfaction. High levels of participation in sports and cultural activities and active participation in school-organised afterschool and lunchtime activities are central to student belonging and engagement. What happens in the classroom is just as important, with greater self-confidence reported among students experiencing more interactive teaching approaches, and positive Transition Year (TY) and LCA experiences carrying a host of benefits in terms of self-awareness and personal development. But constraints are clearly apparent, ranging from outdated facilities that ‘don’t lend themselves to change’ in (cross-)curricular and extracurricular terms, and the lack of key facilities (like sports halls, home economics rooms) and resources to support schools in offering a diversity of activities. The social structuring of participation in youth clubs, arts and cultural activities also raises questions over the adequacy of resourcing for community facilities in socially disadvantaged communities. While the experience during COVID-19 and since has highlighted the urgent need for professional, therapeutic supports for children and young adults, the results from this study also highlight the importance of resourcing all school communities to provide a diversity of enriching activities within and outside the classroom to support young people as they develop. 11.4 CONCLUSION One thing that struck us as researchers during this project was the level of change underway within Irish voluntary secondary schools, especially in relation to the seismic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic but also evident in longer-term developments in Irish education. Considering even the last 20 years, or the space of a single generation, there have been massive shifts in how students with SEN 67 Department of Education. ‘Catalogue of wellbeing resources for post-primary schools’, webpage, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a9118-catalogue-of-wellbeing-resources-for-schools/. 236 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education are included and supported in mainstream schools as the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN) Act is implemented and inclusion becomes a genuine priority. There have been huge and positive developments in supports for students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds over the same period, most notably with the introduction of the DEIS programme. On the day-today level, classrooms have been transformed by technology use and evolving curricula, among other things. Within the voluntary secondary sector specifically, the number of students in single-sex schools has continued to fall and the proportion of Irish schools with a religious ethos has dropped as new schools have been almost exclusively coeducational and interor multi-denominational. Yet among all this change, much has remained the same. On a negative note, significant parts of the LCA curriculum have not changed at all over this period, simply growing more outdated each year. While Leaving Certificate curricula have evolved and assessment has diversified in many subjects, the focus on this highstakes state exam has only intensified over time. More positively, the ethos of respect and service that guides schools across the voluntary secondary sector has strengthened over time, even as the place of religious orders within schools has faded. We believe that the findings of this report show that in many ways schools are doing what they have always done, but more so, in terms of teaching and learning, care and wellbeing support and extracurricular provision. There is no reason to think the scale of change over the next 20 years will be any less significant than that of the 20 years past. It is vital that the same ambition that underpinned the DEIS programme and EPSEN Act guides continued efforts to build a genuinely inclusive school system for all students, and that the potential of technology to support learning is harnessed. This report has highlighted the support within schools for single-sex and denominational schooling, but also the extent to which many students, parents and staff disagree with their school’s gender mix or specific ethos, suggesting the need for genuine conversation around these areas in schools across Ireland. Within this evolving system, however, this report shows some strengths of voluntary secondary schools which should be preserved. In particular, in a time of increasing focus on international standardised assessment measures – like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) PISA study or the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) scores – as the measure of an education system, the commitment of voluntary secondary schools to the holistic development of students as part of a school community is more important than ever. Schools are not just places where young people learn testable subject matter, they are a dense web of educational experiences and social relations where children are shaped into adults. We hope this report has given a Discussion and conclusion | 237 sense of how voluntary secondary schools are going about this work at the moment, and how they might continue doing so in the future. References | 239 REFERENCES Abemathy, T.V. and S.S. Taylor (2009). ‘Teacher perceptions of students’ understanding of their own disability’, Teacher Education and Special Education , Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 121-136, https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409334084. Agasisti, T.R., Q.E. Melo and R. Maranto. (2023). ‘School choice in Europe’, Journal of School Choice, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2023.2169808. Agasisti, T., M. Cannistrà, G. D’Inverno and K. De Witte (2023). ‘Education chapter’, Public Sector Performance Programme 2022 sub-study: An international benchmarking study, European Institute for Public Administration. Allen, R., C. Kannangara and J. Carson (2023). ‘Long-term mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on university students in the UK: A longitudinal analysis over 12 months’, British Journal of Educational Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2023.2215857. Anders J., L. Macmillan, P. Sturgis and G. Wyness (2022). ‘Inequalities in late adolescents’ educational experiences and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic’, Oxford Review of Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2124964. Andersson M., S. Byrne, L. Emter, B. G. Pardo, V. Jarvis and N. Zorell. (2023). ‘Intangible assets of multinational enterprises in Ireland and their impact on euro area GDP’, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economicbulletin/focus/2023/html/ecb.ebbox202303_02~3404c284d0.en.html, accessed 6 March 2024. Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland (ASTI). (2023). OECD education report: Ireland in last place for investment in second-level education, https://www.asti.ie/newscampaigns/latest-news/oecd-education-report-ireland-in-last-place-forinvestment-in/. Braun, V. and V. Clarke. (2021). ‘One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 328-352, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238. Brick, A., C. Keegan and M.A. Wren. (2020). Utilisation of specialist mental health services in Ireland, Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute, https://www.esri.ie/publications/utilisation-of-specialist-mental-health-servicesin-ireland-baseline-analysis-for-the. Brodie-McKenzie, A. (2020). ‘Empowering students as citizens: Subjectification and civic knowledge in civics and citizenship education’, JAYS 3, pp. 209–222, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-020-00023-3. Byrne, D. and E. Smyth. (2011). Behind the scenes? A study of parental involvement in postprimary education, Dublin: The Liffey Press in association with the ESRI, the NCCA and the Department of Education and Skills. Carroll, E. and S. McCoy. (2021) ‘All in this together? New and enduring forms of inequality post-pandemic’, Ireland’s Education Yearbook 2021, https://irelandseducationyearbook.ie/downloads/IEYB2021/YB2021-SecondLevel-08.pdf. 240 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education Carroll, E., K. Ye and S. McCoy (2022). ‘Educationally maintained inequality? The role of risk factors and resilience at 9, 13 and 17 in disabled young people’s post-school pathways at 20’, Irish Educational Studies, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 573–594, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2022.2093257. Carroll, E., S. McCoy and G. Mihut. (2022). ‘Exploring cumulative disadvantage in early school leaving and planned post-school pathways among those identified with special educational needs in Irish primary schools’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 1065-1082, https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3815. Cefai C., L. Camilleri, P. Bartolo, I. Grazzani, V. Cavioni, E. Conte, V. Ornaghi, A. Agliati, S. Gandellini., S.T. Vorkapic, M. Poulou, B. Martinson, I. Stokenberga, C. Simões, M. Santos, and A.A. Colomeischi (2022). ‘The effectiveness of a school-based, universal mental health programme in six European countries’, Frontiers in Psychology, August 8, No. 13:925614, https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.925614, eCollection 2022, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.925614/full. Central Statistics Office (CSO) (2016). Census of population 2016 – Profile 8 Irish Travellers, ethnicity and religion, https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/pcp8iter/p8iter/p8rrc/. Central Statistics Office (CSO) (2023). Census of population 2022 - Summary results, https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/population/censusofpopulation2022/censusofp opulation2022-summaryresults/. Cheshmehzangi, A., T. Zou, Z. Su and T. Tang. (2022). ‘The growing digital divide in education among primary and secondary children during the COVID-19 pandemic: An overview of social exclusion and education equality issues’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, Vol. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2022.2062515. Cohen, L., L. Mannion and K. Morrison. (2007). Research methods in education, sixth edition, London: Routledge Press. Cosgrove, J., E. Feerick, E. Moran and R. Perkins. (2022). Digital technologies in education: Ireland in international context (trends and implications from PISA 2012–2018), Dublin: Educational Research Centre, https://www.erc.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2022/09/DT-in-Ed-PISA-2012-to-2018-for-web.pdf. Crean, M., D. Devine, B. Moore, G.M. Sainz, J. Symonds, S. Sloan and E. Farrell (2023). ‘Social class, COVID-19 and care: Schools on the front line in Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 44, No. 3, https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2023.2174077. Cross, J., T. Cross and C. O’Reilly (2022). Irish gifted students: Self, social and academic explorations, Dublin: Centre for Talented Youth – Ireland, https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/sustainability_dcu_editor/202206/CTYI%20-%20Irish%20Gifted%20Students%20Report.pdf. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, Sage. References | 241 Darmody M. and E. Smyth. (2013). Governance and funding of voluntary secondary schools in Ireland, Research Series No. 34, Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute, https://www.esri.ie/system/files/media/file-uploads/2015-07/RS34.pdf. DeAngelis, C.A. and A.K. Dills (2021). ‘The effects of school choice on mental health’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 326-344, https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1846569. Deisenrieder, V., S. Kubisch L. Keller, and J. Stötter (2020). ‘Bridging the action gap by democratizing climate change education — The case of k.i.d.z.21 in the context of fridays for future’, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 5, 1748, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051748. Dempsey, S., S. Lyons and S. McCoy (2019). ‘Later is better: Mobile phone ownership and child academic development, evidence from a longitudinal study’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 798-815, https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2018.1559786. Dempsey, S., S. Lyons and S. McCoy. (2020). ‘Early mobile phone ownership: Influencing the wellbeing of girls and boys in Ireland?’, Journal of Children and Media, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 492-509, https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1725902. Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) (2024). SONC Part 3: Children's outcomes, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/916ef-sonc-part3-childrens-outcomes/, p. 10. Department of Education (2020). The assessment and reporting on students’ learning – Junior Cycle 2022, https://www.gov.ie/en/circular/c797a-arrangements-for-theimplementation-of-the-framework-for-junior-cycle-with-particular-reference-toschool-year-202021/. Department of Education (2021). Chief inspector reports, Chief Inspector Reports (www.gov.ie), accessed 23 January 2024. Department of Education (2021). ‘Circular 0047/2021’, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/198336/d1a62eca-694b-4ff9922f-060814612d13.pdf#page=null. Department of Education (2022). Senior Cycle reform, Dublin: Government Publications, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/f53c6-senior-cycle-reform/. Department of Education (2023a). What subject inspections tell us about Junior Cycle implementation, Dublin: Department of Education, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/271755/84ad1f1c-65d1-45459504-10b831c8fa3b.pdf#page=null. Department of Education (2023b). ‘School Building Programme resumed’, press release, 5 April, https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/788ae-ministers-foley-and-madiganconfirm-delivery-of-58-school-building-projects-that-were-temporarily-paused/. Department of Education (2023c). ‘Initial Teacher Education policy statement’, Dublin Department of Education. Department of Education (2023d). ‘Department of Education confirms 15,282 Ukrainian pupils currently enrolled in Irish schools’, press release, 5 April, 248 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education OIDEL (2018). Freedom of education index, 2018, https://www.oidel.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/Version-anglaise_cute_3.pdf. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018). ‘Questions related to global competence in the student questionnaire’, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2018-Global-Competence-Questionnaire.pdf. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2020). Education in Ireland: An OECD assessment of the Senior Cycle review, Implementing Education Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/636bc6c1-en. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2023a). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2023b). PISA 2022 results (Volume II): Learning during – and from – disruption, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en. Owens, J. and T. de St Croix (2020). ‘Engines of social mobility? Navigating meritocratic education discourse in an unequal society’, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 403-424, https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2019.1708863. Paulus F.W., S. Ohmann and C. Popow (2016). ‘Practitioner review: School-based interventions in child mental health’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 57, No. 12, pp. 1337–1359, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12584. Peace-Hughes, T. (2021). ‘Exploring how performativity influences the culture of secondary schooling in Scotland’, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 267286, https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2020.1801986. Polesel, J. and K. Clarke. 2011. ‘The marginalisation of VET in an Australian secondary school’, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 525–538. Prior, L. and G. Leckie (2023). ‘School differences on whether and where students apply to university’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2023.2244177. Redmond, M. (2016). Affective attunement: Emotion and collaboration – A study of Ireland’s voluntary secondary school principals’, Dublin: JMB, Affective Attunement - A Study of Ireland’s Voluntary Secondary Principals.pdf (open.ac.uk). Rickard, N.S., T.C. Chin, D. Cross, J. Hattie and D.A. Vella-Brodrick (2023). ‘Effects of a positive education programme on secondary school students’ mental health and wellbeing; challenges of the school context’, Oxford Review of Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2211254. Ross, C., M. Kennedy and A. Devitt (2021). ‘Home school community liaison coordinators (HSCL) perspectives on supporting family wellbeing and learning during the COVID19 school closures: Critical needs and lessons learned’, Irish Educational Studies, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 311-318, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1915842. RSM (2022). Evaluation of the School Meals Programme, Dublin: Department of Social Protection. References | 249 Skerritt C., M. Brown and J. O’Hara. (2021). ‘Student voice and classroom practice: How students are consulted in contexts without traditions of student voice’, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1979086. Slee R. (2018). Inclusive education isn’t dead, it just smells funny, first edition, London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429486869. Smith E. and D. Reimer (2023). ‘Understanding gender inequality in children’s reading behavior: New insights from digital behavioral data’, Child Development, https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.14001. Smyth E., A. Murray, E. McNamara, D. O’Mahony, A. Nolan and B. Duggan (2023). Key findings: Cohort ’08 at 13 years old. Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Dublin, https://www.growingup.gov.ie/pubs/Key-FindingsCohort-08-at-13.pdf. Smyth, E. and M. Darmody (2013). Governance and funding of second-level schools in Ireland, Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. Smyth, E., S. McCoy and J. Banks (2019). ‘Student, teacher and parent perspectives on Senior Cycle education’, Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute, https://www.esri.ie/publications/student-teacher-and-parent-perspectives-onsenior-cycle-education. Stapleton, C. (2020). ‘The voice of minority faith and worldview students in post-primary schools with a Catholic ethos in Ireland’, Irish Educational Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 457-474, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2019.1697950. Stidder, G., G. Lines and S. Keyworth. (2013). ‘Investigating the gender regime in physical education and dance’, Equity and inclusion in physical education and sport, G. Stidder and S. Hayes (eds.), pp. 66–86, London: Routledge. Teaching Council (2020). Céim: Standards for initial teacher education, https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/2023/08/ceim-standards-forinitial-teacher-education.pdf. The Secretariat of Secondary Schools (SSS) (2021). Strategic Development Plan 2022–2025, Dublin: JMB, Secretariat of Secondary Schools - Strategic Development Plan 20222025 - Joint Managerial Body (jmb.ie). Timmons, S., E. Carroll and F. McGinnity. (2023). Experimental tests of public support for disability policy. ESRI Research Series No. 159, Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute, https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/RS159.pdf. van der Kooij, J.C., D.J. de Ruyter and S. Miedema (2017). ‘The merits of using “worldview” in religious education’, Religious Education, Vol. 112, No. 2, pp. 172-184, https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2016.1191410. Weare, K. and M. Nind (2011). ‘Mental health promotion and problem prevention in schools: What does the evidence say?’, Health Promotion International, Vol. 26 (Suppl 1), pp. i29–69, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar075. Wolf, K. and J. Schmitz (2023). ‘Scoping review: longitudinal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on child and adolescent mental health’, Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 250 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education Vol. 21, pp. 1–56, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-023-02206-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37081139/. Youniss J. (2011). ‘Civic education: What schools can do to encourage civic identity and action’, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 98–103, https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2011.560814. Appendix – Additional tables | 251 APPENDIX – ADDITIONAL TABLES TABLE A1 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF HAVING POSITIVE SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 0.23 *** 0.19 *** 0.10 *** Girls (Ref: boys and other68) 0.63 *** 0.60 * 0.45 ** University-educated parents (Ref: lower education69) 1.01 1.01 0.99 No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty70) 1.69 *** 1.69 *** 1.34 * SEN/disability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 0.63 ** 0.62 ** 0.75 Had SEN 0.61 ** 0.62 ** 0.66 # Fifth year (Ref: second year) 1.11 ** 1.11 ** 1.04 School type (Ref: non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.24 0.94 Fee-charging schools 1.11 0.94 School gender mix (Ref: co-ed schools) Girls school 1.31 1.25 Boys school 1.26 1.02 Missed over 10 days (Ref: missed 10 days less71) 0.71 * Always missed friends during COVID-19 (Ref: sometimes/never missed friends72) 1.66 *** Positive school engagement (Ref: less positive) 1.96 *** Positive teacher interaction (Ref: fewer positive interactions) 1.35 * Positive teacher expectation (Ref: lower expectation) 2.43 *** Strong value emphasis at school (Ref: weaker value emphasis) 1.45 # Stronger school ethos (Ref: weaker ethos) 2.73 *** N 1,844 1,844 1,673 Pseudo R2 0.03 0.03 0.19 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, school absence and their COVID-19 experience) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. 68 The reference group here includes those who identified themselves as boys, as well as those who identified themselves as ‘non-binary or other’. 69 The reference group here includes those who reported to have only parent with a third-level degree, had neither with a third-level degree or ‘I don’t know’. 70 The reference group here includes those who reported that it was ‘fairly easy’, ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to pay all the bills, those who ‘were not sure/would rather not say’, as well as those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 71 The reference group here includes those who reported missing ten or fewer days of school, as well as those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 72 The reference group here includes those who ‘sometime/never’ missed their friends during the COVID-19 pandemic, and those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 252 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education TABLE A2 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF MISSING OVER 10 DAYS AT SCHOOL Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 0.61 *** 0.59 * 0.62 # Girls (Ref: boys and other) 1.16 1.53 * 1.36 University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 0.71 *** 0.76 * 0.85 No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty) 0.68 *** 0.70 *** 0.75 ** SEN/disability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 1.22 1.22 0.95 Had SEN 1.67 *** 1.69 *** 1.26 Fifth year (Ref: second year) 1.01 1.03 0.99 School type (Ref: non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.03 1.05 Fee-charging schools 0.81 0.76 # School gender mix (Ref: co-ed schools) Girls school 0.66 ** 0.70 * Boys school 0.95 1.02 Positive school engagement (Ref: less positive) 0.53 *** Above average academic self-image (Ref: average or below73) 0.59 *** Always struggled to engage with study during COVID-19 (Ref: Sometimes/never struggled to engage74) 1.52 *** Negative teacher interaction (Ref: fewer negative interactions) 1.29 # Positive school engagement (Ref: less positive) 0.80 Strong value emphasis at school (Ref: weaker value emphasis) 1.37 * N 1,856 1,856 1,765 Pseudo R2 0.02 0.05 0.07 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, academic self-image and whether the student struggled to engage during the COVID-19 pandemic) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. 73 The reference group here includes those who reported to have an ‘average’, ‘just below average’ or ‘below average’ exam performance, and those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 74 The reference group here includes those who ‘sometimes/never struggled to engage with their study during COVID’, and those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). Appendix – Additional tables | 253 TABLE A3 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF LIKING SCHOOL Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 0.43 *** 0.34 ** 0.10 *** Girls (Ref: boys and other) 0.99 0.97 1.27 University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 1.82 *** 1.56 *** 1.48 *** No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty) 1.40 *** 1.35 *** 1.01 SEN/disability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 0.63 *** 0.62 *** 0.87 Had SEN 0.65 * 0.64 * 1.04 Fifth year (Ref: second year) 1.08 1.07 1.08 School type (Ref: non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.23 1.24 Fee-charging schools 2.26 *** 2.31 *** School gender mix (Ref: co-ed schools) Girls school 1.27 1.17 Boys school 1.30 1.14 Belong at school (Ref: don’t belong75) 2.72 *** Above average academic selfimage (Ref: average or below) 1.69 *** Missed over 10 days (Ref: missed 10 days less) 0.48 *** Positive teacher expectation (Ref: lower expectation) 3.25 *** Positive social engagement (Ref: negative engagement) 1.48 * Participates in arts activities (Ref: no participation76) 1.48 ** N 1,856 1,856 1,837 Pseudo R2 0.038 0.055 0.193 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, sense of belonging at school, academic self-image, school absence and art activity participation) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in the footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. 75 The reference group here includes those who (strongly) disagreed, felt neutral, or did not respond to the question regarding their sense of belonging at school (i.e., missing values). 76 The reference group here includes those who ‘did not participate in art, drama, dance or music clubs/practice’, and those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 254 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education TABLE A4 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF (STRONGLY) AGREEING THAT SCHOOLWORK IS WORTH DOING Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 1.26 0.84 0.49 * Girls (Ref: boys and other) 1.23 1.27 1.30 University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 1.47 * 1.28 # 1.05 No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty) 1.53 *** 1.47 *** 1.33 ** SEN/disability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 0.53 *** 0.52 *** 0.62 *** Had SEN 0.54 *** 0.56 *** 0.73 * Fifth year (Ref: second year) 1.11 * 1.09 * 1.07 School type (Ref: non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.15 1.09 Feecharging schools 1.77 *** 1.51 ** School gender mix (Ref: coed schools) Girls school 1.64 *** 1.48 # Boys school 1.88 *** 1.57 ** Like school (Ref: dislike77) 2.60 *** Belong at school (Ref: don’t belong) 1.65 *** Above average academic selfimage (Ref: average or below) 1.16 Missed over 10 days (Ref: missed 10 days less) 0.96 Positive teacher interaction (Ref: fewer positive interactions) 1.68 *** Negative teacher interaction (Ref: fewer negative interactions) 0.56 *** Student-led ethos (Ref: less student-led) 1.59 ** N 1,856 1,856 1,733 Pseudo R2 0.04 0.06 0.15 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, sense of belonging at school, academic self-image and school absence) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. 77 The reference group here includes those who reported feeling ‘alright’ about their school, those who did not like their school, or those who hated their school, as well as those who did not respond to this question (missing values). Appendix – Additional tables | 255 TABLE A5 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF HAVING POSITIVE TEACHER INTERACTION AT SCHOOL Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 0.27 *** 0.20 *** 0.05 *** Girls (Ref: boys and other) 0.80 0.95 1.34 University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 1.20 1.22 1.03 No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty) 1.58 *** 1.60 *** 1.26 SEN/disability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 0.56 *** 0.56 *** 0.76 * Had SEN 0.83 0.85 1.50 Fifth year (Ref: second year) 1.02 1.03 1.02 School type (Ref: non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.32 # 1.19 Feecharging schools 1.11 0.85 School gender mix (Ref: co-ed schools) Girls school 1.00 0.88 Boys school 1.29 1.21 Above average academic selfimage (Ref: average or below) 3.07 *** missed over 10 days (Ref: missed 10 days less) 0.75 # Negative teacher interaction (Ref: fewer negative interactions) 1.65 * Positive teacher expectation (Ref: lower expectation) 4.05 *** Student-led ethos (Ref: less student-led) 1.87 *** Stronger school ethos (Ref: weaker ethos) 1.68 ** N 1,778 1,778 1,673 Pseudo R2 0.02 0.02 0.19 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, academic self-image and school absence) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. 256 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education TABLE A6 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF HAVING POSITIVE TEACHER EXPECTATIONS Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 0.21 *** 0.16 *** 0.10 *** Girls (Ref: boys and other) 0.59 *** 0.73 0.50 ** University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 0.90 0.89 0.57 *** No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty) 1.60 *** 1.60 *** 1.25 SEN/disability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 0.53 *** 0.53 *** 0.81 Had SEN 0.55 ** 0.56 ** 0.69 Fifth year (Ref: second year) 1.16 * 1.17 * 1.09 School type (Ref: non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.23 0.83 Fee-charging schools 1.15 0.78 School gender mix (Ref: co-ed schools) Girls school 0.96 0.78 # Boys school 1.31 0.66 # Positive school engagement (Ref: less positive) 4.02 *** Above average academic self-image (Ref: average or below) 1.34 Missed over 10 days (Ref: missed 10 days less) 1.11 Positive teacher interaction (Ref: fewer positive interactions) 3.11 *** Negative teacher interaction (Ref: fewer negative interactions) 0.38 *** Positive social engagement (Ref: less positive) 2.46 *** Student-led ethos (Ref: less student-led) 1.75 ** Stronger school ethos (Ref: weaker ethos) 2.82 *** N 1,847 1,847 1,648 Pseudo R2 0.04 0.04 0.32 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, academic self-image and school absence) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. Appendix – Additional tables | 257 TABLE A7 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF HAVING STUDENT-LED ETHOS AT SCHOOL Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 0.41 *** 0.24 *** 0.10 *** Girls (Ref: boys and other) 1.03 1.04 1.17 University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 1.13 1.08 1.01 No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty) 1.16 1.16 0.86 SEN/disability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 0.73 * 0.72 * 1.07 Had SEN 0.64 * 0.66 * 0.92 Fifth year (Ref: second year) 1.02 1.02 0.98 School type (Ref: non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.79 *** 1.74 *** fee charging schools 1.57 *** 1.48 *** School gender mix (Ref: co-ed schools) Girls school 1.53 # 1.56 Boys school 1.65 *** 1.41 *** Belong at school (Ref: don’t belong) 2.27 *** Above average academic self-image (Ref: average or below) 1.00 Positive school engagement (Ref: less positive) 1.32 # Positive teacher interaction (Ref: fewer positive interactions) 1.78 *** Negative teacher interaction (Ref: fewer negative interactions) 0.72 # Positive teacher expectation (Ref: lower expectation) 1.73 ** Stronger school ethos (Ref: weaker ethos) 2.64 *** N 1,764 1,764 1,654 Pseudo R2 0.01 0.02 0.15 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, sense of belonging at school and academic self-image) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. 264 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education TABLE A13.2 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF SCHOOL BENEFITTING STUDENTS IN GETTING INVOLVED IN SPORTS ‘A LOT’ (GIRLS ONLY) Girls Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 0.63 * 0.73 0.93 University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 1.74 *** 1.39 * 1.18 No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty) 1.25 1.20 0.97 SEN/sisability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 0.63 ** 0.62 ** 0.80 Had SEN 0.61 * 0.54 ** 0.70 Fifth year (Ref: second year) 0.79 *** 0.77 *** 0.70 *** School type (Ref: non-DEIS Schools) DEIS schools 2.85 *** 2.77 *** Fee-charging schools 2.49 *** 2.45 *** School gender mix (Ref: co-ed Schools) Girls school 1.64 ** 1.60 * School size (Ref: large school) Medium size 0.66 ** 0.66 ** Small size 0.16 *** 0.14 *** Positive school engagement (Ref: less positive) 1.57 * Missed over 10 days (Ref: missed 10 days less) 0.63 ** Positive teacher interaction (Ref: fewer positive interactions) 1.29 Student-led ethos (Ref: less studentled) 1.30 Positive social engagement (Ref: negative engagement) 2.21 *** Stronger school ethos (Ref: weaker ethos) 1.32 N 1,063 1,063 965 Pseudo R2 0.05 0.09 0.14 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Only girls are included in this model. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty and school absence) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. Appendix – Additional tables | 265 TABLE A14 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF BEING SATISFIED WITH THEIR LIFE (LIFE SATISFACTION LEVEL AT 8 OR ABOVE) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 1.11 0.92 0.26 *** Girls (Ref: Boys and other) 0.56 *** 0.56 *** 0.58 ** University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 1.20 1.22 1.11 No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty) 1.51 *** 1.52 *** 1.31 # SEN/disability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 0.61 *** 0.61 *** 0.79 * Had SEN 0.52 *** 0.53 *** 0.62 * Fifth year (Ref: second year) 0.84 *** 0.84 *** 0.86 ** School type (Ref: Non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.18 1.13 Fee-charging Schools 0.97 0.88 School gender Mix (Ref: co-ed schools) Girls school 1.2 1.2 Boys school 1.23 1.05 Belong at school (Ref: Don’t belong) 2.18 *** Felt unhappy at school (Ref: Not feeling unhappy at school)81 0.64 * Good wellbeing support at school (Ref: poor wellbeing support) 1.64 *** Positive teacher interaction (Ref: fewer positive interactions) 1.35 ** Stronger school ethos (Ref: weaker ethos) 1.62 *** Always had parent help with homework during COVID-19 (Ref: sometimes/never had parents’ help)82 1.42 * COVID-19 still impacting on wellbeing (Ref: wellbeing is less impacted)83 0.52 *** Participates in sports activities (Ref: no participation)84 1.44 * Participates in arts activities (Ref: no participation) 1.26 * 81 The reference group here refers to those who ‘agree,’ ‘feel neutral,’ ‘disagree,’ or ‘strongly disagree’ with the statement that they found school to be a place where they felt unhappy, as well as those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 82 The reference group here refers to those who ‘sometimes/never’ had parents’ help during the COVID-19 pandemic, and those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 83 The reference group here refers to those who reported COVID had ‘a little’ or ‘no’ impact on their wellbeing now, and those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 84 The reference group here refers to those who did not participate in sports or other physical activities, and those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 266 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education TABLE A14 (CONTD.) MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF BEING SATISFIED WITH THEIR LIFE (LIFE SATISFACTION LEVEL AT 8 OR ABOVE) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 N 1,856 1,856 1,715 Pseudo R2 0.04 0.04 0.14 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, sense of belonging at school, wellbeing support at school, whether they had parent help during the COVID19 pandemic and long-lasting impact of COVID-19 on their wellbeing) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. Appendix – Additional tables | 267 TABLE A15.1 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF BEING WORRIED ABOUT FUTURE (FIFTH YEAR ONLY) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 0.34 *** 0.27 *** 0.19 *** Girls (Ref: Boys and other) 1.95 *** 3.18 *** 2.91 ** University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 0.75 # 0.79 0.82 No economic difficulty (Ref: Have difficulty) 1.09 1.10 1.16 SEN/disability (Ref: no SEN) Not sure 1.34 1.36 1.35 Had SEN 1.74 * 1.81 ** 1.93 ** School type (Ref: non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.14 1.27 Fee-charging Schools 0.95 1.07 School gender mix (Ref: co-ed schools) Girls school 0.70 0.70 Boys school 1.35 1.35 Positive school engagement (Ref: less positive) 0.53 *** Above average academic self-image (Ref: Average or below) 0.75 Missed over 10 days (Ref: missed 10 days less) 1.02 COVID-19 still impacting on overall learning (Ref: overall learning is less impacted) 1.72 ** Planned to go for HE after leaving school (Ref: no HE plans)85 1.94 ** N 792 792 753 Pseudo R2 0.03 0.03 0.06 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Only fifth year students were included in the model as this information was only collected from fifth year students. HE=Higher education. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, academic self-image, school absence, COVID-19 long-lasting impact on overall learning, and their higher education plans) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. 85 The reference group here includes those who did not plan to go for higher education, and those who did not respond to this question (i.e., missing values). 268 | The voluntary secondary sector in Irish education TABLE A15.2 MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL OF BEING EXCITED ABOUT FUTURE (FIFTH YEAR ONLY) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Constant 0.63 ** 0.92 * 0.48 * Girls (Ref: boys and other) 0.75 # 0.84 0.80 University-educated parents (Ref: lower education) 1.35 * 1.45 * 1.34 # No economic difficulty (Ref: have difficulty) 1.33 # 1.34 # 1.11 SEN/Disability (Ref: No SEN) Not sure 0.55 ** 0.56 ** 0.67 # Had SEN 0.53 ** 0.56 * 0.63 # School type (Ref: non-DEIS schools) DEIS schools 1.02 0.91 Fee-charging Schools 0.72 0.66 # School gender mix (Ref: co-ed schools) Girls school 1.01 0.97 Boys school 1.21 1.07 Positive school engagement (Ref: less positive) 2.27 *** Belong at school (Ref: don’t belong) 1.4 # Above average academic self-image (Ref: average or below) 1.49 * Always had parent help with homework during COVID-19 (Ref: sometimes/never had parents' help) 1.61 * Planned to go for HE after leaving school (Ref: no HE plans) 0.70 # N 792 792 756 Pseudo R2 0.03 0.03 0.07 Notes: ***p<0.001; ** p<0.01; *p<0.05; #p<0.1. Only fifth year students were included in the model as this information was only collected from fifth year students. HE=Higher education. Variables with missing values in the reference group are noted and explained in a footnote. We have checked the coefficients of missing dummy variables (i.e., the missing dummy variables of parental education, economic difficulty, sense of belonging at school, academic self-image, their access to parents’ help during COVID-19, and their higher education plans) in this model, and none of these variables was found to be statistically significant at a 5% level. Therefore, missing values are included in the reference group, as they do not differ significantly from the rest of the reference group. For ease of reading, explanations in footnotes are only provided for variables appearing for the first time in the model. Appendix – Additional tables | 269 TABLE A16 STUDENT PROFILE IN SURVEY IN VOLUNTARY SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND GUI 08’COHORT DATA (WAVE 6) Voluntary secondary schools in our sample GUI 08 ’Cohort Fee-charging Non-fee-charging Total Fee-charging secondary Non-fee-charging secondary ETB Comprehensive/ community Total Gender Female 56% 55% 55% 40% 48% 46% 50% 48% Male 45% 45% 45% 60% 52% 54% 50% 52% Disability/SEN No SEN 84% 86% 86% 71% 74% 71% 68% 72% Had SEN 16% 14% 14% 29% 26% 29% 32% 28% Parental education* No degree 24% 62% 55% 46% 77% 86% 81% 79% Degree 76% 38% 45% 54% 23% 14% 19% 21% Economic difficulty* No economic difficulty 85% 76% 78% 77% 61% 55% 56% 60% Had economic difficulty 15% 24% 22% 23% 39% 45% 44% 40% Source: Survey in voluntary secondary schools, as reported here; GUI 08’ Cohort, Wave 6. Note: Parental education and economic difficulty measures differ slightly between the voluntary secondary schools survey and the GUI. In the former, ‘degree’ refers to those with both university-educated parents, and ‘no degree’ refers to those with either or neither university-educated parents, or those who did not know their parents’ education level. The economic difficulty measure is based on students’ reports. ‘No economic difficulty’ refers to those who reported that it was ‘fairly easy’, ‘easy’, or ‘very easy’ to pay all the bills, as well as those who had the specified list of material goods, and those who ‘did not have and did not want’ them. 'Had economic difficulty’ refers to those who had difficulty paying bills and those who ‘did not have but want[ed]’ the specified list of material items. In the GUI, parental education refers to the primary caregiver's education level. ‘Degree’ refers to those who had a university degree or above, and ‘No degree’ refers to anything less. The economic difficulty measure in GUI data is based on primary caregivers’ reports. ‘No economic difficulty’ refers to those who reported no difficulty in making ends meet, and ‘Had economic difficulty’ refers to those who had great or some difficulty in making ends meet. Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2 Telephone +353 1 863 2000 Email [email protected] Web www.esri.ie Twitter @ESRIDublin