Written Answers. - Leaving Certificate Papers.
Micheál Martin
Question:
86
Mr. Martin
asked the
Minister for Education
the reason it took until February 1996, to respond to correspondence from parents of St. Mary's School, Dundalk, County Louth, received by her in October 1995, relating to concerns raised by them about the marking of honours English leaving certificate papers submitted by 80 candidates from the school.
[5251/96]
I have dealt with this issue in my speech on the Adjournment last night, 5 March 1996.
Following the issue of the results of the appeals for the leaving certificate examinations on 4 October 1995 a number of parents of candidates from St. Mary's College, Dundalk began a correspondence with myself and the Department seeking a further review of the leaving certificate English higher level results for the 18 candidates who had already appealed.
The chief examiner for English was instructed to conduct a further review of the grades awarded for these 18 candidates. He in turn instructed the chief advising examiner to review these 18 scripts and to verify whether they had been marked in accordance with the marking scheme agreed for the examination. In due course the chief advising examiner, a teacher with over 20 years experience of examination work, reported that the results had been in accordance with the marking scheme and did not recommend any further upgrades. He passed the papers to the inspector who was chief examiner for English, who in turn passed them to a superior officer on 7 November 1995.
There was no further communication with the parents for three months. A preliminary and informal report has been received from the officer who received these papers. I am concerned that the delay was so prolonged. I have a responsibility before passing final comment on the delay to take full account of all the circumstances — including the systems involved and giving persons involved the opportunity to explain fully the circumstances as they see them. I have asked for a further and formal report on the circumstances surrounding the delay. Pending receipt and consideration of this report I will not comment further on the matter.
Micheál Martin
Question:
87
Mr. Martin
asked the
Minister for Education
the reason an agreement reached between officials of her Department and parents of students of St. Mary's School, Dundalk, County Louth, on 22 February 1996, outlining a procedure to be followed to determine the fairness of results given to students from the school for the 1995 honours leaving certificate English papers submitted by them was not implemented by her Department.
[5252/96]
Micheál Martin
Question:
89
Mr. Martin
asked the
Minister for Education
the outcome of a meeting convened on 22 February 1996 at St. Mary's School, Dundalk, County Louth between officials of her Department and representatives from the staff and parents of the school in relation to the marking of 1995 honours English leaving certificate papers submitted by candidates from the school.
[5254/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 87 and 89 together.
The chief inspector and the inspector who was chief examiner for English visited the school on 22 February 1996. Following a meeting between the chief examiner for English and the principal and the teachers of English in the school, the chief inspector joined them for a discussion with three representatives of the parents.
The parents at that meeting made clear their disappointment at the result and referred to the fact that the majority of pupils had received grades C or D in English whereas some of them had received much higher grades in the other subjects.
The parents suggested that a teacher in the school who had acted as an assistant examiner at this level in 1995 should remark some scripts from which the marks originally assigned had been deleted. This could not be accepted by the inspectors as it would contravene the regulations whereby teachers are precluded from acting as examiners of their own pupils.
The inspectors did undertake to have a recheck of a number of the 1995 scripts from the school. These were to include some scripts, to be nominated for comparison purposes by the school authorities. They also undertook that the chief examiner for English would return within one week to inform the school of the results of the recheck. He would also bring with him copies of the marked scripts to show to the school authorities.
On 23 February 1996 the principal teacher telephoned the Department and asked that the scripts of six nominated candidates within the school be looked at especially. On 24 February the chief inspector instructed the chief examiner for English and the chief advising examiner (for English) to recheck jointly first the six nominated scripts and then the further 12 scripts that had been appealed originally. On Wednesday 28 February the review of the scripts was completed and no upgrade was recommended. All the nominated scripts were found to have been graded correctly.
On Thursday 29 February the chief examiner for English, accompanied by the chief advising examiner visited the school again and discussed the findings of the review with the chairman of the board of management, the principal and one of the teachers of English in the school. The chief examiner for English had with him copies of the six nominated scripts. When he had almost finished discussing the first of these scripts with the representatives of the school, the principal said there was no point in proceeding any further because of the divergence of opinions between the chief examiner for English and the teacher. The principal teacher undertook to inform the parents. Following this a second teacher of English met the group briefly but the third teacher was not available. The principal teacher has agreed with the chief examiner that this is a factual account of the events of 22, 23 and 29 February 1996.
Secondary schools are privately owned and when the principal teacher appeared to draw the meeting to a close, the Department representative considered that he should not proceed further.
The core issue here is whether or not the scripts were graded in line with the criteria applied nationally. The Department maintains, following four successive rounds of scrutiny, that they were. The parents and the teachers of English in the school maintain otherwise. Unfortunately subsidiary issues have now become a matter of contention.
In order to bring the focus back on to the core issue and as an assurance of good faith on the part of the Department I am prepared to ask the chief examiner for English and the chief advising examiner together with the deputy chief inspector to visit the school again by appointment to meet with all three teachers and the principal. I would be disposed to have a situation where the meeting or meetings would have an independent chairperson who would report to me afterwards. My officials will be in touch with the school shortly.
Micheál Martin
Question:
88
Mr. Martin
asked the
Minister for Education
whether an official from her Department accompanied personnel from Price Waterhouse to meetings with interested parties relating to the ongoing investigation of errors in the operation of the 1995 leaving certificate art examination.
[5253/96]
At the request of Price Waterhouse, an officer from the personnel area of my Department was nominated to act as a facilitator to the Price Waterhouse team for the duration of the inquiry. This officer was present at some, but not all, of the meetings with interested parties, and always at the discretion of the parties involved.
