If you're 15 and about to sit your Junior Cert, you're unlikely to take much interest in the fine print of media reports on education. That's just as well, perhaps, during your junior-cycle years. Worse still, some of the more interesting parts of the curriculum - experimental science for example - may be closed off to you because there is currently no way way of assessing the work. All you're faced with is a big-bang exam at the end of your third year. Two weeks ago, the ASTI announced it was pulling out of the consultative process on the Junior Certificate planned by the Department of Education and Science.

All the signs are that the issue of school-based assessment is about as intractable as the Peace Process. It's been with us since the new Junior Cert was introduced back in 1989. The new Junior Cert curriculum was developed for all the best reasons. It was designed as a single programme to replace the Intermediate and Day Vocational or Group certificates. Its aim was to provide a student-centred, broad and balanced curriculum leading to certification, awarded on the basis of a wide range of modes of assessment. As well as written terminal exams, students were to be assessed by means of oral and aural exams, project and practical work. It is widely accepted that written exams have a narrow focus and favour only a section of the school-going population. Indeed, they may even prevent many youngsters from displaying their knowledge, expertise, aptitudes and understanding. Written exams, too, can contribute to the drop-out rate. They deter some youngsters, give them a sense of failure and put them off school completely.

When teachers refused to co-operate with school-based assessment, the Junior Cert exams went ahead (for the first time in 1992) as largely written exams only, although some schools have managed to implement school-based assessment in some instances. But if school-based assessment is such an anathema to teachers, why not opt for external assessment? According to the Department of Education and Science, the situation regarding examiners is becoming untenable. Two-thirds of the State's 20,000 second-level teachers are already involved one way or another in the running of the exams. Already, the examining of orals, practicals and projects during the school year, puts a huge strain on schools. The 1998 Leaving and Junior Cert exams, for example, required the withdrawal of some 2,300 teachers from their schools for oral, practical and project work. "For schools," says the NCCA, "the external assessment of components other than the written examination causes particular and well-documented logistical difficulties . . . The integrity of time in school for the full curriculum is threatened by the assessment of those subjects in the Junior Certificate examinations (and Leaving Cert exams) which currently feature forms of assessment other than written terminal examination papers."

AT THE REQUEST of the Minister, the NCCA published its Junior Cycle Review - Progress Report: Issues and Options for Development, in March this year. The document proposes the establishment of a pilot project to explore possible future directions for assessment at junior cycle. One strand would focus on formative (continuous) assessment by teachers, for which they would be given guidelines by the NCCA. A second strand would examine the way in which a range of external assessment methods could be introduced with minimal disruption for schools. A third strand would explore how school-based assessment might be made available. None of these strands would "initially take place in the context of national certification", the review stresses. "The current reliance on terminal assessment, and the over-emphasis on written examinations has resulted in a series of imbalances within the Junior Certificate programme, which compromise to an unacceptable degree the integrity of the programme and the junior cycle of postprimary education," it continues. "The need for development in assessment at junior cycle is clear and urgent." The NCCA also argues that no developments can take place at Leaving Cert level until changes are made in the Junior Cert exams. The failure to resolve the issue of school-based assessment has huge implications for the Points Commission, which is expected to report shortly on its deliberations. It is anticipated that the commission will recommend that a wider variety of assessment methods be used at Leaving Cert level.

In September, the Department of Education and Science published The Junior Certificate - Issues for Discussion. "The Minister felt it incumbent to express a policy direction in relation to the future of the Leaving Cert," says a Department source. However, the Department stresses that this latter document in no way supercedes the NCCA's review. As a result of the document, the Department initiated a consultation process (which was due to start yesterday) in a sample of 75 schools in six regions - Athlone, Galway, South and North Dublin, Monaghan and Cork. The schools have been selected independently by the Education Research Centre, Drumcondra, Dublin.

Two weeks ago, the ASTI dropped its bombshell and announced that it was pulling out of the consultation process. The TUI, however, has opted to remain on board. "Unless the assessment issue is resolved there is no way forward for the Junior Cert," argues Billy Fitzpatrick, who is the TUI's education officer. The fact that there are no science practicals makes a mockery of the Junior Cert and it's simply a joke that there are no orals in the language exams, he says. When it comes to assessment, the TUI is open to discussion. "We are not idealogically opposed to school-based assessment," Fitzpatrick says, "but we do have a number of conditions." These include external monitoring, payment for the extra work incurred by teachers, time to be allowed for assessment and special and adequate training. The TUI will participate in the consultation process and remain open and positive about addressing the problems of the Junior Cert, he promises. However, "we're not interested in putting a lot of effort into designing an assessment system that goes nowhere", he warns. "We need guarantees that what we're doing is not tokenism." Fitzpatrick suggests that the TUI's positive attitude towards school-based assessment is prompted by the fact that its members have considerable experience of internal assessments. "Our members assess their own students at third level and in the PLC sector and we've been involved in a number of pioneering programmes. In the 1970s, Junior Cert programmes in the humanities and integrated science were assessed by teachers and moderated by external examiners," he explains.

"A lot of us at third-level have been teachers at second level," comments Professor Aine Hyland, vice-president of UCC. "We are aware of the issues but we have faced them in third level and they are not as insurmountable as they appear."

Introducing school-based assessment at Junior Cert level makes a lot of sense, she says. "It's no longer a high-stakes exam, but it takes time for the culture to change. Teachers need confidence. They need a lot of in-service and things need to be done slowly and carefully."

Hyland suggests that interim measures - ongoing portfolio assessment for example - be taken to move the culture away from terminal exams. "The consultation process could lead to something very constructive." It's a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland, she says. "If we don't move forward we'll go back to the old days."