I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 7 together.
One hundred and four candidates sat the higher level English paper at St. Mary's College, Dundalk. Eighty of them were attempting the examination for the first time, 22 were repeating and two were external candidates. Eighteen of the 80 first time candidates appealed their results and one of them was upgraded as a result. A further recheck was made following representations in October and as a result no further upgrades were warranted.
I have received the formal report on the circumstances surrounding the delay in conveying this to the correspondents from St. Mary's school, Dundalk. I regret the delay in giving the result of the rechecks. The delay was due to oversight and no other reason.
The report indicates that the correspondence from the parents and the school was immediately acknowledged by my Department. On receipt of the correspondence all 18 scripts were rechecked but no change was recommended.
As is normal practice, the matter was then referred to a senior member of the inspectorate. At that time he was engaged in other important duties, including preparation for the 1996 examination. He laid the papers aside for further consideration but, regrettably, overlooked the matter. This does not condone the delay and the matter is being followed up in line with the Department's internal procedures. I repeat that the scripts from the candidates were marked strictly in accordance with national criteria and this was confirmed by the rechecking process.
When I issued the press release of 1 March last I was not aware that the management of St. Mary's school had written to the Department independently from the letter from the parents' group to me of 10 October 1995. I was also not aware of this when the Adjournment debate took place on Tuesday, 5 March last. It was only subsequent to that debate it was established that a letter from the school was also with the papers which had been referred to the senior member of the inspectorate. I regret I may have inadvertently misled the House on 5 March last in this regard.
I had indicated I was prepared to ask the chief examiner for English, with the chief advising examiner and the deputy chief inspector, to again visit the school by appointment to meet all three teachers and the principal, but this did not take place because the school side wished to broaden the scope of the meeting.
The school and the parents wished the meeting to address the issue as to why candidates from the school with different perceived abilities were awarded the same grades and they wished to have comparisons made between the scripts of candidates on whose behalf an appeal had been made and candidates from the school on whose behalf no appeal had been submitted. This could not be accepted. Marks in the State examinations are awarded on the basis of nationally agreed criteria and these cannot be the subject of negotiation. Having been briefed on the four stages of marking and rechecks of the work of the candidates of St. Mary's College, I am satisfied that the grades awarded are fair and in line with national criteria.