Vol. 461 No. 7
30 Mr. Martin asked the Minister for Education the reason for the delay of her Department's officials informing her of the fact that students at the Ursuline College Secondary School, Sligo had not received credit of craftwork submitted for the 1995 leaving certificate art examination; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3866/96]
31 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Education the systems, if any, that have been put in place to ensure full public confidence in the leaving certificate examination system and in particular, the arts and crafts sections. [3724/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 30 and 31 together.
I am concerned that the certificate examinations retain the full confidence of students, parents and teachers and the many institutions which rely on them. For this reason I considered it essential that the operation of the 1995 leaving certificate art examination should be the subject of a full independent inquiry. This inquiry, now being conducted by Price Waterhouse, will address all aspects of the matter including how and when the problem came to light and any question of delay. I intend to publish the report of the inquiry.
I have also asked Price Waterhouse to review the appeals procedure in the case of all subjects.
It is my firm intention that recommendations arising from the Price Waterhouse report will be implemented for the 1996 examinations.
My question was specific, asking the Minister to explain why it took so long for the officials in the Department to alert her to the fact that a major error had been uncovered in relation to giving credit for craftwork submitted by students from the Ursuline College in Sligo. On what date did the officials in the Department become aware that this error had taken place?
Considering that Price Waterhouse has been asked to look at all aspects of the 1995 art examinations, including the question of delay in communicating information, it is wise that I should await the outcome of its inquiry. Those matters will be dealt with and are being addressed by the inquiry; it would serve no useful purpose to pre-empt its results. I have undertaken to publish the report.
When will the report be published? Will the Minister commit herself to implementing its recommendations? Will she ensure that any such recommendations will be in place before this year's examinations as there is great lack of confidence in the system, particularly among students? There was a fail safe mechanism in operation in regard to this subject. Is that still in place? That is something for which we do not need to await the report to find out the answer.
I have given an undertaking that the Price Waterhouse recommendations about reviewing the appeals mechanism will be in place for this year's examinations. It is incumbent on all of us not to allow what happened last year — and I make no excuse for the failure — to result in any destabilising of the attitude among the students taking the 1995-96 examination. Not only has Price Waterhouse been invited to inquire into the matter of last year's examination, it has been asked to look at the appeals mechanism for all subjects. If Price Waterhouse feels that in order to retain confidence in the examination — and that is my primary concern — it must bring forward recommendations seeking a review or a change in the appeals mechanism, I will undertake now, without seeing any report, to put those procedures in place for this year's examination. Students, teachers and parents must have confidence in the system. If needs be the system will be reviewed and renewed for this year's students.
The Minister has the answers. I asked her for specific information.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw that. I do not know.
The Minister knows.
In the interests of students it is important that such accusations are not made.
The Minister did not allow me to finish my question. In a written reply last week——
I must dissuade the Member from engaging in repetition. It is not in order at Question Time.
——you confirmed that the Assistant Secretary in your Department told you of the error on 12 December.
I would prefer if questions were directed through the Chair rather than put directly to the Minister.
The Minister informed me that the Assistant Secretary informed her of the error in Sligo on 12 December last. She also informed me that on 21 or 22 November a letter was received from a parent in Sligo.
The Deputy must proceed by way of relevant question not by argument.
The Minister must know the date on which officials in her Department uncovered this error. What is the date? The Minister is accountable to the House for the operation of the 1995 leaving certificate examination.
The Deputy has made his point adequately.
We have made numerous attempts to table private notice questions without success.
I am on my feet. The Deputy must resume his seat.
I want a simple answer to a simple question.
That is the subject of investigation. In reply to part of the question raised by Deputy Keogh it might to be useful to talk in broad terms about how the failures occurred.
It would be very useful if the Minister spoke in broad terms.
A 24 hour period is particularly broad.
I have asked that we do not undermine the confidence of the present cohort of students taking examinations by engaging in this kind of speculation.
What speculation?
It is a matter of public interest. It is about a serious issue. I am entitled to ask a simple straightforward question looking for specific replies and the public——
The Deputy may not proceed to interrupt in a seated position. That is disorderly and I will not tolerate it. The Deputy asked a question and he should be good enough to listen to the reply with courtesy and respect.
The Deputy must not like the outcome.
The questions being asked in the House are the subject of an inquiry by an independent body, Price Waterhouse. I have undertaken to publish the inquiry and where reforms are necessary they will be put in place this year. I will not speculate on the outcome of the inquiry.
No one is asking the Minister to speculate.
The information the Deputy seeks will be laid in the public arena.
I asked the Minister to indicate when she expects the report will be available. Where is that part of the Minister's comprehensive package of reform announced on 13 November last which stated that the earlier issuing of leaving certificate appeals results, aiming to recheck leaving certificate papers by 27 September——
It is not in order for the Deputy to quote at Question Time.
I am paraphrasing. Where stands that aspect of the announcement?
I expect the report to be available in the near future. Not only will it look at the failure in the marking of last year's art examination but it will bring forward suggestions for reform of the appeals system, if necessary. That must be in place for this year's students. I will make the proposals public. Confidence must be retained in the public examinations system.
Who authorised the rechecking of the 11,000 art entries when the error was discovered in Sligo?
These questions have been asked. I do not want to pre-empt the results of the inquiry. It is important not to use confidence in the examination system as a political football.
Is the Minister suggesting it was authorised without her knowledge?
No one is asking the Minister to pre-empt the results of the inquiry.
That is a red herring. The mismanagement of this is undermining public confidence. It is very insulting behaviour.
I initiated an independent inquiry against the advice of the Deputy across the Chamber.
That is untrue.
The report of the inquiry and any recommendations made will be put in the public arena.
Did the Minister authorise it or did some of her officials authorise it without her knowledge?
Any recommendations they make will be put in place for the 1996 examination.
I am not getting answers to my specific questions. It is inconceivable for the Minister for Education to suggest that she was not aware that there were 11,000 rechecks taking place. The Minister must know if she authorised it.
The Deputy may not ignore the Chair. The Deputy must resume his seat.
The Minister has ignored proper procedures. She is not being accountable to the House for a serious error that was made under her jurisdiction.
The Deputy has shown disdain, disregard and disrespect for the Chair. He must resume his seat forthwith or remove himself from the House.
I have made every effort to pursue this through the mechanisms of the House. It is a disgrace.
I will not tolerate any more.
The Deputy must be disappointed with the inquiry.
We are not getting answers. It seems incredible that the Minister would not be aware of it.
The Deputy is getting the facts.
The Minister is dodging many of the issues put to her. She said we must await the results of the inquiry.
Why did she send the Assistant Secretary to bat for her? Why did she not answer the question in the first place?
I have not made any excuses for the fact that this serious error occurred. It is so serious I decided to initiate an independent inquiry into the conduct of the 1995 art examination. I will not pre-empt the results of the report expected shortly.
No one is asking the Minister to do so.
Not only did I ask for an inquiry into how this happened but if those conducting the inquiry believe it is necessary to refine the appeals procedure for all subjects, their proposals will be put in place for the 1996 examination.
That is good news and the Deputy should be happy.
We are not finished yet.
On a point of order, will the Chair confirm that the purpose of Question Time is not to speculate on the outcome of an inquiry but to elicit facts about specific questions.
That is hardly a point of order.
I seek the Chair's direction.
Let us continue with Question No. 32 in ordinary time.
We sought to elicit simple facts but we did not get them.
The Deputy knows well that if Members are dissatisfied with the Minister's reply they have many remedies open to them.
I thank the Chair for that direction.
