I wish to share time with Deputy Keogh.
Adjournment Debate. - Leaving Certificate Honours Mathematics Paper.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I raise this matter on the Adjournment to seek an explanation from the Minister as to how an error of this magnitude could occur on paper II of this year's honours mathematics paper. I am disappointed the Minister has not come into the House to give an explanation on behalf of her Department on this very serious issue which has caused widespread concern. How does the Department intend to make allowances to deal with the error and to compensate students for its impact on their performance? We have had some vague statements about the matter but we want a transparent account of how the Department intends to make allowances for the error. In question 4 (c) of the paper, a trigonometry question, students were given an isosceles triangle, the angles of which added up to more than 184 degrees, a mathematical impossibility.
I received complaints from parents about the matter. Many students spent an undue length of time on the question while others avoided it. I heard a student outline in detail on radio today how it affected his performance. He was unable to finish the question and kept returning to it throughout the examination to see if he could work it out. At the weekend parents called to my clinic in Cork to complain about the effect the error had on their children. It caused considerable distress and upset and affected their preparation and composure for subsequent examinations. I have personal knowledge of cases where students' performances in other papers were affected as a result of the difficulties they encountered with this question.
Mr. Richard Walsh, a mathematics teacher in Abbey CBS in Tipperary, summed up the matter when he said many students were put off by the question, some thought their calculations were wrong and others spent an inordinate amount of time on it. He concluded by saying that he had never seen such a mistake on a mathematics paper in his 25 years of teaching.
Surely such distress and trauma could have been avoided. The Minister failed in her responsibility to ensure the integrity of the public examinations system and has not maintained a hands-on approach to the operation of that system. Given the errors discovered in the operation of last year's examinations, it is extraordinary that an error of this magnitude should occur. It is obvious that a proper system is not in place to ensure the efficient and effective operation of our public examinations system. The Department's response has not been adequate and lacks clarity in terms of how the paper will be corrected.
The Minister must accept responsibility for this state of affairs. She has not put in place procedures to prevent such errors taking place. She has not given the State examinations system the attention and resources it needs. Given what happened in the past, most people find it extraordinary that such an error should happen. Furthermore, the time has come for the establishment of an independent examination appeals board to deal with complaints, queries and to recheck applications from students, parents and schools in regard to our State examinations system.
I thank Deputy Martin for sharing his time. This has been an appalling blunder in the leaving certificate examination paper. It is difficult to over-estimate the feelings of students who sat the examination. Because of the mistake in this question many students were put off. It is incumbent on the Minister to give a clear explanation how this happened. She must reassure students about the integrity of the examinations system. It is unbelievable that this mistake should follow other blunders in the Department of Education. This type of stress and worry adds to the difficulties of students going through this stressful period.
What reparation will be made to these students? How did the mistake happen? What checks and balances were in place? Will the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report cover the type of difficulties that occurred in this year's leaving certificate examination papers? It is crucial that the Minister gives a clear explanation in this regard and reassures students, particularly the victims of this error.
I apologise for the absence of the Minister who is attending a Cabinet meeting.
There was an error in question 4 (c) of the leaving certificate higher level mathematics paper II examination held on 7 June. The error is regretted.
A code of procedure identifies the various stages in the preparation of an examination paper up to the scrutiny of the final printed paper. This includes procedures intended to minimise error at the following stages; preparation of the paper from the drafts supplied; proof reading of the paper on one or more occasions as necessary and comparison of English and Irish versions of the paper. When each paper is printed a scrutiny copy is re-examined. If any errors are detected an errata list is perpared. Such an errata list is read out by the examination superintendent before the commencement of each examination as appropriate.
In this particular case the error originated when question four was simplified and redrafted. The diagram shows a triangle in which one of the values given to an angle is incorrect. However, the original value of the angle in the draft question was retained and this was not discovered in the subsequent stages during the profing. The error was not detected at the stage when the scrutiny copy was examined on 28 May 1996. After that point no further scrutiny was possible.
Part (c) of question four represented 15 marks out of a total 600 marks for the two examination papers i.e., 2.5 per cent of the total marks. About 10,000 candidates sat leaving certificate higher level mathematics.
The examination was held on 7 June 1996. The error was discussed in detail at the pre-marking conference with the chief advising examiner and advising examiners on 13 and 14 June. The examination marking conference is being held today and tomorrow. From an analysis of scripts at the pre-marking conference and following a further analysis of some scripts over the weekend, there is no evidence that candidates had been confused or frustrated. As is normal comments on the mathematics examination papers were received from the ASTI, the TUI and the Irish Mathematics Teachers Association. The views of these bodies were that the error did not have a major effect and did not seem to upset students who completed the question using the given data without analysis.
The marking scheme will be adapted to ensure that all reasonable attempts at the section of the question containing the error will receive due credit. If candidates state there is a problem with the question and make a reasonable attempt, due credit will also be given.