VALERIE MONAGHANFifty thousand pupils are currently getting ready for one of the biggest changes in their young lives. In primary schools up and down the land, sixth-class pupils are preparing to say goodbye to the primary school and move to second level.

I have no doubt that while the physical transition will not take place until September, some pupils have in their own minds already left. Most of them will have made their Confirmation, sat exams for their new schools and most likely have been offered a place.

In this context it is hard to blame them for being more focused on the Champions League final later this month than on anything their teachers are teaching them for the next two months. Many are probably making life tough for their sixth-class teachers, for whom May and June are the longest months of the year. These teachers will probably want to have me certified when they read what I have to say.

The fact is, we have never seriously questioned why we make children change schools at age 12. It seems to be that it is accepted uncritically as the way things have always been done.

There is no doubt that, in spite of the huge changes that have taken place in the education system, much of what we do is a legacy of history. There was a time when the most we could expect from the State, prior to the emigrant ship, was a primary education. Twelve years was an acceptable age at which to pack in academia to work on the family farm or in the big house.

But as we extended our education system - most notably with the introduction of free second-level education 40 years ago - what we did was build on what was there already. Twelve became the age at which children were selected for academic or technical education, depending on whether they got places in the local secondary or vocational school.

Although all that has changed, little thought, then or since, has been put into considering alternative structures.

It is arguable that 12 is not the right time to make children change schools. There are good academic and social reasons why we should at least examine the issue and consider alternatives.

Changing school, for most 12- year-olds, means not only changing their physical environment and going to a different building often many miles away, but changing the routine of their lives. It means changing their friends, teachers and hours of attendance. It means changing not only where children are taught but the subjects they learn and the way they are taught.

Over the coming summer these children will go from being the oldest to being the youngest in school. They will move from very small to very large learning communities.

We do all of this to children at a time when nature is playing havoc with their emotional development anyway. At the very time they are trying to come to terms with these changes, the education system decides that another significant change must be forced on them. At perhaps the most unstable time in childhood, we insist on introducing more instability.

I believe that there is a strong case on social grounds to examine this issue. I also think there is a good argument to look at it on educational grounds. The key question should be: "how does this affect children's learning?"

There is a need to be careful here. Comments have always been made by one level of the education system about the level below it. University lecturers bemoan standards at second level. Second-level teachers often pass remarks about what is taught or not taught in primary schools. I suppose soon we will be hearing primary teachers commenting on pre-school or even creche standards.

There is an interesting study under way in this area by the Education Research Centre, which is tracking the progress of a cohort of pupils through second level. Although incomplete as yet, preliminary findings appear to suggest that curriculum discontinuity is an issue between primary and post-primary. The research seems to show that many students find first year in post-primary under-challenging, which can in some cases lead to underperformance. The danger here is that negative cycles build up consisting of misbehaviour that in turn brings teacher reprimand which can lead to student disengagement.

What pupils need most of all is a system that is responsive to their needs, and at the top of the list of needs is stability. Perhaps we should be looking at fundamental change in the education system, the result of which would be a seamless system from four to 15, about the age when students sit the Junior Certificate. After that, options could be exercised.

Such a review might consider the benefits of introducing some specialist teaching from ages 12

to 15, though with many subjects taught by generalist teachers. What about flexibility that would allow primary teachers, particularly those with specialist literacy and numeracy skills, to teach this cohort of pupils? How about making sure that there is continuity of curriculum and teaching methods for this age group?

As I said at the start, many already stressed sixth-class teachers facing groups of children with turbo-charged emotions will simply want to hold open the exit door of the school and wave goodbye to their charges. But if the system were redesigned and reconfigured, might not all our lives be made a little more manageable?

Valerie Monaghan is principal of Scoil Chiarán, Glasnevin, Dublin