Since the Minister for Education is not present and we agreed on the Order of Business this morning to adjourn at 12 midnight and continue this debate at a future date, would it be appropriate to move the adjournment of this debate now? We would be agreeable, as I am sure the Minister would to adjourn it to a future date, probably in October.
Private Members' Business. - Leaving Certificate Art Examination Report: Statements.
We should wait for interested Members to make an appearance.
Yesterday I made available to Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas a copy of a report on the investigations into the various operational failures in the 1995 leaving certificate art examination.
This investigation and report represents the most comprehensive and thorough review of central aspects of the national certificate examinations ever carried out. I greatly regret the circumstances which led to the review. Nonetheless, the work carried out by Price Waterhouse provides an opportunity for an objective appraisal of the system and provides a detailed blueprint for action to ensure that the kind of failures which occurred never recur.
Any consideration of this report should reasonably take place in the context of the enormously complex operation that is the annual certificate examinations. Price Waterhouse themselves set out this context in the early pages of their report and it may be worth repeating some of the statistics. Over 130,000 students sat the junior certificate and leaving certificate examinations in 1995, producing scripts totalling almost 1.3 million. Almost 5,000 people were employed in 1995 in superintending the examinations and over 5,500 people were employed in marking the examinations. These people brought enormous dedication to their involvement. They included many teachers, some of whom acted as superintendents in examination centres, and who made up the core of the examiners.
I deeply regret that confidence may have been damaged by the operational failures in the 1995 Art examination which culminated in issuing incorrect results to some students.
Students who sat the examinations deserved better. Their parents and teachers deserved better as did the many people who put in long hours and tremendous dedication in schools and in the examinations system generally. It is because I believed they deserved better that I commissioned this report by independent consultants.
I firmly believe that this report and the actions which my Department has already taken and will further take will restore any confidence lost and provide a better examinations system.
The terms of reference given to Price Waterhouse required that they investigate the reasons for operational failures in the 1995 leaving certificate Art examination. In carrying out its investigations according to the terms of reference given to it Price Waterhouse conducted interviews with parties directly involved and with senior officials of my Department. It also received submissions from staff unions and other interested parties.
In its report Price Waterhouse sets out in detail the background to the various examinations processes, indicates areas where deficiencies occurred in the 1995 art examination and makes recommendations to address these deficiencies. Within the time available I would like to outline to the House findings and recommendations identified by Price Waterhouse. It is clear from the Price Waterhouse report that no one reason caused the operational failures in the 1995 leaving certificate art examination. One of the central conclusions of the report is that many errors and failures occured and the reasons for their occurrence are complex and multi-faceted.
The Price Waterhouse report deals with the factors which gave rise to the upgrading of 359 candidates arising from the remarking of the work of one assistant examiner. In doing that Price Waterhouse identified a number of areas where deficiencies occurred in the paper setting process, the marking scheme, the marking process and the remarking. It concluded that the situation was unique and there was no precedent for the arrangements which were made. In reviewing the Department's response Price Waterhouse concluded that while there was a strong prima facie case for remarking, nonetheless the arrangements put in place were hastily conceived. It stressed that this judgment is made in hindsight and that the time pressures involved were intense.
Notwithstanding the deficiencies which Price Waterhouse identified in the various stages leading up to and including the remarking of the scripts marked by an assistant examiner, it concluded that there was no inherent widespread inconsistency in the marking standards originally used in 1995 and that there is no reasonable case for remarking all candidates in that year.
Price Waterhouse made a number of recommendations to address the particular issues raised by the remarking of papers in 1995. The priority recommendations have been put into effect for this year's examination.
The failure to credit candidates with marks for missing components was brought to the Department's attention by a telephone call from a parent concerning a letter relating to an appeal, which had not been replied to. The examinations branch discovered that a number of candidates had not been credited with marks for the craft or design component of the examination. Following a process of investigation which included a review of the marking sheets of all 11,000 candidates a total of 47 upgrades were awarded.
Price Waterhouse reviewed the following aspects of the work of the examinations branch in the course of its investigations into this matter: — the recording of attendance at the craft examination and the forwarding of the craft pieces to the examinations branch for marking and their receipt there; the storing of craftwork; the marking of craftwork and the keying of the marks into the computer; the marking conference; finalisation of examiners' work and the keying of results; the totting check process and the generation and follow up of queries; and the issuing of results and the appeals process. Deficiencies in processes and procedures were found under these headings and I would like to outline for the House some of the deficiencies set out in the report.
Price Waterhouse found that the inability to record receipt of boxes on an individual basis in the examinations branch was a significant weakness in the system. It went on to say that any solution in this area must balance the very large volumes involved and the need to ensure that delays do not arise.
In relation to the storing and opening of boxes of craft pieces the report found that attendance rolls for three of the schools, including the Ursuline College, affected by missing components have not been traced; the attendance roll for one of the schools affected indicates that the process for ticking off pieces on the attendance roll may not have been fully complied with in 1995; the master list of schools with craft candidates cannot be located and it is not possible to establish how or when it went missing; there is no record that the Ursuline College was contacted during this period; and An Post stated that a package bearing the same reference number as the package of craftwork from the Ursuline College was signed for as having been received by an employee of a company in Sligo but it has not been traced.
In the marking of the craftwork Price Waterhouse found that no marking conference was held prior to the marking. There was no follow-up action at this stage on left-over marking cards. Having keyed the marks into the computer system no report is generated comparing candidates to whom craft marks have been credited with the entry list of all candidates. Although clear written instructions were given to assistant examiners at the marking conference, regarding the completion of marking sheets, some assistant examiners incorrectly completed the sheets by inserting a figure for total marks, thereby overriding a significant control point in the system. Cases without a total, such as cases with components missing, would otherwise have been dealt with as queries. The totting check process was also not conducted in a fully accurate manner in 1995 leading to the failure to generate appropriate query sheets.
In the generation and follow-up of queries Price Waterhouse found a number of deficiencies, including the introduction of a new query sheet which, in some respects, was not as clear as the previous version; queries were not properly processed; and the processes for dealing with queries remaining unresolved and were not formalised.
These deficiencies in the follow-up of queries were not noticed at the results issuing stage as the computer reports, because of the various failures and system deficiencies that had occurred earlier, did not reflect the true situation.
In the normal course, unsatisfactory processing of cases with queries would be resolved at the appeals stage. However, here too critical failures occured, as established by Price Waterhouse. Other than the chief examiner, none of the team of examiners dealing with the appeals was familiar with the detail of the appeals process, never having previously worked on appeals. The chief advising examiner was not involved, as he had been in previous years. The chief advising examiner had long experience with the processing of appeals and Price Waterhouse concluded that had he been involved he would most likely have identified the missing component problem in the cases of candidates who appealed.
In addition because of the earlier incident involving 359 upgradings the chief examiner sought to strengthen the appeals process by having all scripts and marking sheets returned to her. No copies of the marking sheets went to the administrative staff. An assumption on their part that all aspects of the appeals were being dealt with by the chief examiner and art inspector and poor communication led to the false belief that queries had been dealt with.
In reviewing the response of my Department to the missing components issue, Price Waterhouse examined a number of issues.
They reviewed the possibility that efforts were made to conceal the failures and errors which occurred. They noted that several important items of documentation were missing, that their loss could not be explained and clearly was unsatisfactory. They concluded this did not constitute evidence of a deliberate concealment of material information and stated they did not uncover evidence of such concealment or of deliberate destruction of documents.
The consultants examined the activities undertaken from the time the problem was identified to the time it was brought to my attention. They concluded the steps taken during that time were reasonable and necessary to establish the extent of the problem, to try to locate key documentation and craft pieces before declaring them to be irretrievably lost, to establish the causes of the many errors which occurred, to assess the impact on the candidates concerned and to decide how to address the position of candidates who did not appeal.
They reviewed the procedures used in carrying out the check on all 11,000 candidates in the period 15 to 20 December 1995. They concluded this check was undertaken by a team experienced in missing components issues and was carried out in the manner which queries, properly handled, would normally be processed.
The report explains the confusion which arose as to whether 46 or 47 was the final total of upgrade cases from the various checks carried out. The existence of one case was overlooked when the original figure of 46 candidates was reported as the candidates in question was upgraded from a Grade F to Grade E. This was still a failed result and did not affect the candidate's CAO/CAS offer. Notification of the up-grade to the candidate was not affected by this overlooking of the case.
Price Waterhouse reviewed the methodology used in awarding marks to candidates for the missing components. Two approaches were used. In the case of the Ursuline College and the Vocational School in Navan, both of which had a number of students affected, the Art teachers were asked to give an assessment. In all other cases the final grade was arrived at by assuming a candidate would have achieved the same average mark in craftwork as in the other three components. Price Waterhouse recommend that a uniform methodology be used in any future cases of this nature.
The approach taken in dealing with the schools, candidates and parents affected was examined and the report sets out the action taken by the Department in December 1995 and January 1996 involving visits to the schools most affected and the holding of a public meeting in Sligo.
Price Waterhouse conclude that no further checks need be done on the work of the 1995 candidates in relation to missing components and that no further clerical and — or administrative checks are needed.
The consultants refer to two particularly significant changes which when implemented will do most to prevent a repetition of the events which occurred in 1995. These are the marking of craftwork in schools and the modification of the computer system to ensure the system will automatically generate error reports when marks for all components are not recorded.
As the House will be aware I announced my decision to implement both of these recommendations for the 1996 examinations at the teachers' conferences earlier this year.
In addition, other recommendations of Price Waterhouse have already been implemented or are in course of being implemented for the 1996 exams.
These include: a new and strengthened examiner structure for art; an improved marking scheme and more precise instructions at marking conferences allied to enhanced monitoring of the re-marking process; new query resolution processes and sign-off procedures; enhanced processes for dealing with art appeals; and an improved results issuing process.
Overall, Price Waterhouse conclude there was no single cause for the errors and failures which occurred, that the reasons for their occurrence was, in most cases, complex and multi-faceted. I take no comfort from the fact they also concluded that any system depending on human input is prone to error or that in a system the size of the examinations system problems will occur. I greatly regret that problems occurred, and procedures were not followed as they should have been. The fact remains that students did not get credit for the work they had done and I apologise to the students affected, their parents and their schools.
Having received the Price Waterhouse report it is my intention that any damage to confidence in the examinations system generally and in the art examination in particular should now be repaired.
Any objective reader of the report will be struck by the extent to which the consultants found the art examination to be unique both in the procedures adopted and in its inherent complexity. It is important to stress in the interests of fairness and objectivity that the State examination system generally remains a fair and effective method of assessing students' knowledge and abilities as they leave second level education.
I welcome today's statement by the ASTI that by any reasonable measure the Irish examination system is successful. It processes huge amounts of material from more than 130,000 candidates each year with relatively few difficulties. Given that 1.3 million items have to be accounted for in a short timescale, statements which suggest that the examinations system is a shambles are opportunistic and unfortunate. As for the art examination, I now have available to me, in Price Waterhouse's report a very detailed programme for improvement. It is important to stress that many of the recommendations have already been implemented, including the key recommendations of marking craftwork in schools and improving the computer system to ensure that a repetition of these failures cannot occur.
The Price Waterhouse report not only sets out recommendations but also priorities those recommendations and identifies and implementation structure designed to ensure the orderly implementation of those recommendations which are of a medium-term nature.
I have made copies of the report available to all members of the Oireachtas so that the issues raised in it can be fully and publicly debated. It was always my intention that the failures in the art examination would be fully investigated and the results of that investigation openly and publicly debated.
It was also my firm resolve that the investigation would be an external and independent one as this independence was and is essential to the maintenance of confidence in the examinations system. Price Waterhouse acknowledge they had the full co-operation of my officials and full access to all documentation and records requested.
In the course of their investigations Price Waterhouse indicated to my Department that while they would make their report to me, they had concerns about widespread publication of the report and could not make their report available if such publication was contemplated. Given the widespread public interest in the matters which are the subject of this report, I felt obliged, notwithstanding the concerns of Price Waterhouse, to ensure that its contents could be publicly debated. By providing the full report to Members of the Oireachtas, the concerns of Price Waterhouse have been met and my objective of public scrutiny and debate achieved.
Given the legitimate concerns of many interested parties I have arranged for officials of my Department to meet and appropriately brief those parties. including in particular those concerned at the Ursuline College in Sligo.
I welcome tonight's debate as a means of ensuring that concerns can be fully articulated and reassurance given. I hope the debate will be conducted in a spirit of constructive criticism. I reiterate that the students and their parents at the centre of the problems with the art examination deserved better. Similarly students generally, their parents and schools deserve better than that this report should be used for partisan purposes. Regard must be had for the impact such an approach would have on confidence in our examinations system and the motivating of young people to give their best. The examination system is fundamentally sound and the failures which occurred in the art examination have been and will continue to be addressed by me and my Department as a matter of the utmost priority. I have demonstrated my determination in this regard already with the changes that have been made for this year's examinations. The others will follow without delay.
I disagree very strongly with the Minister on the manner in which the report has been circulated and the manner in which it is being treated by this House. As far back as February we received a written commitment from the Government Chief Whip that there would be a debate on the publication of the Price Waterhouse report and a question and answer session with the Minister. By any standards, debating a report of such importance——
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, I did not give a commitment in relation to a question and answer session. I said that when the report was published it would be duly debated and the Minister would be more than willing to come before the House, but I did not give a commitment to have a question and answer session.
Why not?
A commitment was not given on a question and answer session.
Why should there not be a question and answer session?
The Deputy should not have made that false assertion.
The guardians of transparency. Why should there not be a question and answer session?
Members will have an opportunity of contributing to the debate. Exchanges across the floor are quite unnecessary.
I did not interrupt the Minister. I am making a point.
The Deputy made an incorrect assertion.
I did not. By any standards, having a debate on this report from 10.30 p.m. untill 12 midnight in a packed session ten days before the summer recess is a disgrace.
The Deputy agreed to it.
I sought a debate because we have only eight or nine days left. The Minister for Education said that students and parents deserved better. With respect, what they deserve is a copy of the report, which they have not got to date. They deserve greater respect than they have received to date. The National Parents Council, not the Department, has provided a helpline for students and parents. By any objective standard that is not the way to treat an important report. I hope the Select Committee on Social Affairs will have the opportunity to go into the report in greater detail.
I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the manner in which the report has been treated by the House. The Minister was fundamentally wrong in the route she took in circulating the report. She should have published it and, at the very least, insisted that the Government would make time available in the House yesterday, simultaneously with the circulation of the report to Members, so that the report could have been read on to the record during the debate.
It seems bizarre and extraordinary that the consultants who were hired and paid from taxpayers' money should have the ultimate say in determining the mechanism by which the report is made available to Members and to the general public. It is a totally unsatisfactory situation. Clearly the Oireachtas should establish proper procedures to facilitate the publication of reports of significant public importance.
The Minister should place before the House all correspondence between her Department and her office and Price Waterhouse. I made this request on the Order of Business and I received a communication from the Taoiseach's office that there was no such correspondence between the Minister's office and Price Waterhouse. Yet in the preface to the report there is a letter from Price Waterhouse to the Minister stating: "Dear Minister, The report is being made available to you subject to the condition that publication will be limited to Members of the House of the Oireachtas as set out in the terms of your letter to our solicitors dated 11 June 1996." I want that letter laid before the House in the Oireachtas Library. I wish to see the terms to which the Minister agreed. The official in the Taoiseach's office said there was no such correspondence, but Price Waterhouse obviously referred to particular correspondence and that should be put before the House. It is of general importance to the way the Government conducts business in terms of reports of this kind.
The report is comprehensive and deals with two substantial issues in relation to the leaving certificate art examination in 1995. The first section of the report deals with the 359 upgrades arising from the remarking of the work of one assistant examiner. The second section deals with the 47 upgrades arising from the failure to credit candidates with marks for certain components of the examination which went missing. Of course, there are a number of other sections also dealing with the error arising from the incorrect processing of an appeal and other general issues and the 100 recommendations that flow from it. It represents an important analysis of the manner in which examinations are processed and marked. The report makes for disturbing reading.
Prior to the report's publication, the central focus was on the missing craftwork which was submitted by students from Sligo and elsewhere and for which those students did not receive credit. However, I urge people to pay particular attention to the first section of the report which deals with the 359 upgrades arising from the re-marking of the work of one assistant examiner. The following perhaps represents the essence of what exactly took place. One of this morning's newspapers refers to a catalogue of errors. If it were not so serious, we might talk about a comedy of errors. This whole catastrophe, however, has affected the life chances of young people. It has caused untold worry and anxiety to them, to their parents and families and also to their schools and teachers. In more general terms, the series of mistakes, incompetence and procedural inadequacies which gave rise to this report seriously undermined the confidence which the education service and the public generally have in the leaving certificate examination, an examination for many years regarded as the gold standard in the public examination process. It is imperative that confidence is restored now.
The account given in the early sections of the report on the marking and later on the appeals procedure in the art examination in 1995 reads like a Feydeau farce. What went wrong? There was no detailed marking scheme. There were no sample answers to be worked through at the marking conference. The questions were ambiguous. The people who composed the questions had no input into the marking scheme. That is only the start. The marking conference began on the morning of 4 July 1995, but the break up of the scripts was not done until after lunch. They were keying craft marks into the computer, so there were no marking sheets with the scripts. The marking sheets arrived at 3.30 p.m. The whole process was over by 5 p.m. This is a key point. The chief advising examiner in art and design spent part of the day going the work of a clerical assistant, photocopying marking schemes and instructions. There seems to have been total confusion regarding the marking of the infamous question number four on art appreciation, where the question Jack B. Yeats was to be divided into two, marked down or left to the discretion of the assistance examiners. In all this confusion, it was discovered that one third of the samples taken had at least one of the four components of the examination missing, raising major questions about the administration of the examination and skewing the statistics generated as part of the marking conference. The marking conference is the key because it has implications for the marking of the 11,000 scripts. To a certain degree, Price Waterhouse fudged that issue in their conclusions. At that stage of the year the Minister was busily drafting her "time in school" circular and cutting back the part-time teaching hours, the leaving certificate results were out and the CAO had issued its first round offers. A school in the north east discovered that its art results were seriously below its expectations and the principal wrote to the Department to complain or appeal.
On 24 August 1995 at the examination branch in Athlone the officer responsible for dealing with post result inquiries received the letter and headed to the stores to retrieve the papers. The purpose was to check the tots, and if they were correct the principal would be informed that the only option was to make individual appeals. In the stores the officer found a new art inspector on what seemed to be a work experience project familiarising himself with the way exam work was marked. The person searching for the scripts casually showed the letter from the school to the new inspector who, incidentally, had no responsibility for the appeals process and said something to the effect that the numbers looked familiar. He also said he thought the same person had marked all the papers and that they should approach the head of the examinations branch, which they did. The head of the examination branch in turn made contact with the chief examiner for higher art who started re-marking papers with the new inspector. They went through papers and out of the 30 they looked at they decided there should be 27 upgrades.
They went back to the head of the examination branch on the Friday and decided to mark all the work of the so-called hard examiner before the CAO second round offers were made. They rounded up a posse of examiners from the Department's list, including a teacher from the same school as the so-called hard examiner.
Today I met an art inspector who was involved in the process of re-marking but who, for some strange reason, did not receive an invitation from Price Waterhouse to present evidence to it. Will the Minister clarify why he was not contacted? What worries me is that many more questions will arise as time goes on. He informed me that there was a sense of panic and chaos within the Department about this issue at the time.
As the examiners arrived in Athlone they were put to re-marking. There was no conference before they started and they gathered their job was to upgrade the marks of candidates before the Tuesday evening. On the Jack B. Yeats question the marks of one candidate were increased from 15 to the maximum of 50. A total of 359 upgrades were granted and the disk was sent to the CAO for the second round offers. The examiners went home tired but happy, tuirseach, traochadh, taréis an lae.
It now transpires the papers may not have been marked too hard. Nobody spoke to the assistant examiner in question. Some students may have been offered third-level places to which they were not entitled while others may have been deprived of what was rightfully theirs. There is also the question of the missing rolls and other documents. Price Waterhouse clearly suspected a coverup but could not prove it.
What is extraordinary is that there was an ongoing series of errors in the re-marking process. For example, the drafters of the 1995 history and appreciation of art paper had no input to the development of the marking scheme. They were not requested to provide sample answers and were not in attendance at the marking conference to give guidelines on the interpretation of questions and the acceptability of particular answers. In other subject areas drafters of papers normally have an input through the provision of sample answers at a minimum.
On page 15 the report highlights the significant and serious deficiencies in the art marking conference held on 4 July 1995. The break-up team did not commence the preparation of the bags of scripts until the morning of the conference. The marking of the sample 20 papers did not, therefore, begin untill after lunch thus constraining the valuable time available for the important task of standardising the marking scheme.
As the registry section in the examinations branch was not requested to photocopy any material for the conference, there is no record of any material being distributed at the conference. The chief advising examiner personally copied and distributed the outline marking scheme and the instructions regarding the filling up of marking sheets.
There was considerable confusion in relation to the marking of particular questions. The chief examiner and the chief advising examiner are adamant that in relation to question No.4 assistant examiners were instructed that if Jack B. Yeats was used by candidates as an example of a contemporary Irish figurative painter the answer was to be allowed but the marks awarded were to be divided by two. The use by candidates of an essay on Jack B. Yeats had arisen and been addressed on a number of previous occasions.
The other art inspector who attended the conference has no recollection of this instruction. I can reveal that a further art inspector whom I met today who was at the conference but not contacted by Price Waterhouse at any stage during the investigations has no recollection of this instruction either. The recollections of the assistant examiners interviewed by Price Waterhouse differ. Some agree that the instruction was given, some believe that the instruction given was less definite and others that it was left their own discretion.
All four components were available only in 170 of the 260 sample 20s marked on the day of the conference. This is extraordinary and disgraceful. The Minister should clarify whether she was aware of this and aware at any stage of the re-marking process heavily criticised by Price Waterhouse. I have information to the effect that the Secretary of the Department was contacted about this error early in the process.
In some cases the craft marks were missing and in others the history and appreciation of art papers were not, contrary to the instructions given by superintendents at examinations centres, in candidates' envelopes with the other two dimensional work. The absence of these components in a significant number of cases calls into question the validity of the statistics generated at the end of the process of marking the sample 20s. We understand it is rare for history and appreciation of art papers to be separated from the rest of the work and that the administration side of the examination board had not been informed that this has been a problem in other years.
Not only am I dissatisfied with the manner in which the report has been circulated, although comprehensive in its analysis of the art examination correction process in 1995, it fudges key issues. It is clear from the first section of the report that Price Waterhouse is extremely critical of the procedures involved in re-marking the work of one assistant examiner. Despite this it states there is no reason to remark the entire 11,000 papers. I question this.
It goes on to state:
The general circumstances giving rise to the remarking of one assistant examiner's work have already been set out. There was an immediate time pressure because of the impending second round CAO offers. [I dispute this as there is an appeals process and third round offers. There was also a strong case for remarking. However, the arrangements put in place were hastily conceived. We stress that this judgement was made in hindsight and that the time pressures involved were intense. As far as we can ascertain the circumstances which give rise to the remarking in this instance were unique and the procedures and processes put in place for undertaking the remarking and grading the 359 upgrades were unprecedented.
The language used is generous. What Price Waterhouse is saying is that the process was fundamentally wrong or irregular. That is the key point. How many times was the report drafted? Is this the final sanitised version and the only draft the Minister received?
It further states:
There are precedents for removing examiners found to be experiencing problems during the marking process and for redistributing their work for marking or remarking as appropriate. However, we were informed that such instances which are rare have occurred during the marking and monitoring process, and not after the issuing of results as happened in the case investigated by us.
The decision to re-mark was based on the identification by an art inspector who had no formal role in the process and the chief examiner for the subject of a problem with the marking of papers of candidates in one particular school on foot of a letter received. While other factors were taken into account, including the fact that the statistics relating to the number of candidates marked at the various grade levels by the assistant examiner in question were out of line with the average, there was no indication that sufficient sampling was carried out prior to the decision of re-mark to establish whether and to what extent the perceived problem extended to candidates' work in other centres.
Insufficient care was taken to protect the identity of the assistant examiner in question which was evident to those involved in the re-marking. In addition, insufficient care was taken in selecting the assistant examiner in the re-marking resulting in an assistant examiner from the same school as the person in question being involved in the re-marking of his work. While there is no reason to believe that these factors were a problem in this particular case, the inherent risk in this situation is that extraneous factors arising from the identity of the assistant examiner being known might affect the re-marking process or might be perceived to have done so. The chief advising examiner was not involved in the decision to re-mark nor in the re-marking process. He was on holiday at the time. Attempts by the assistant chief inspector to contact the chief advising examiner failed, even though he had left a contact number in the examinations branch for his holiday location and he had been contacted at this location in previous years to deal with less significant problems. The chief advising examiner is the main contact point for the assistant examiners during the marking process and is responsible for monitoring their work. He would have had an important contribution to make in the decision to re-mark and in procedures to be adopted if a problem with re-marking was substantiated.
No attempt was made to contact the assistant examiner involved or to establish if he had any information or options which might need to be taken into account as the situation unfolded. This is extraordinary. Neither briefing session or a mini-marking conference was held to give instructions to the assistant examiners undertaking the re-marking. Each was met on arrival at Athlone and based on individual recollections, were given different instructions. The art inspector I met today confirms that. They were told to increase the marks on the papers. They were not told to mark them objectively or to re-examine the papers from the beginning. They were told, before they began to re-mark, that the papers had been marked too severely and the marks must be increased. This is an extraordinary process. This procedure is fundamentally wrong and is contrary to all known procedures in the Department for many years. It should be dealt with by the Minister.
It appears the problems considered to exist with the system used in the case of the particular school which brought matters to a head, quickly became known among the examiners re-marking the papers. In this regard most of the assistant examiners involved believed there was a general expectation that it would be necessary to grant a significant number of upgrading during the re-marking process. I can confirm this, having met an art inspector who was involved in this process. They were all told that the marking had been very severe and papers consequently had to be upgraded. That was the general thrust of the instructions given to the assistant examiners.
The chief examiner and two other art inspectors were directly involved in re-marking. The assistant examiners involved were allowed to allocate marks and grades without any monitoring or approval process, as would be the case if the re-marking had been treated in the same manner as normal appeals. Significantly the report says the chief examiner did not upgrade certain papers during the upgrading.
The new art inspector, who was originally assigned to observe the examinations process in his first year, actually did some of the re-marking. He had no previous formal experience as an examiner for State examinations. He is however, a qualified departmental art inspector, with many years' experience as a teacher and preparing pupils for State examinations, and has considerable postgraduate qualifications.
Two of the assistants involved in re-marking were subsequently found to be overgenerous in their marking at the appeal stage. Assistant examiners had a number of upgradings proposed by them overruled by the chief examiner at the appeal stage in a situation where unlike in the re-marking process, there was supervision of marking standards. The report goes on to say that one of the upgradings awarded at the re-marking stage was also the subject of an appeal at the formal appeal stage. Significantly the script concerned was marked down again during the appeals process. This did not, however, affect the candidates concerned, as the re-marking was allowed to stand. This is also extraordinary. Was the Minister aware of all of this as it was developing within the Department?
The key question of the lack of clarity on how to mark certain questions which dated back to the marking conference surfaced again at this stage. It is a potentially significant issue. There are indications, for example, of different standards being applied by individual re-marking examiners to the Jack B. Yeats answer to question 4 on the History and Appreciation of Art paper. There was at least one script where this question was marked up from an original 15 marks to 50 marks, the maximum marks allowed for this question. The volume of scripts marked by most assistant examiners was high even allowing for the fact that most of the administrative work was done for them in advance and they had already had experience of marking scripts during the normal marking process. Most assistant examiners mark between 40 and 60 scripts in one day.
It is also worth noting that the chief advising examiner and the assistant examiner concerned both first became aware of the suspected problem and its resolution through the news media. Both considered, having been directly affected by the outcome, that they should have been contacted directly by the Department and not have learned of these matters through the news media. It suggests considerable personality problems within the Department and within this section. The chief advising examiner was concerned that his non-involvement in the re-marking process and subsequently his exclusion from the appeals process as detailed in section 4 could be interpreted as a commentary on his performance of his professional duties. The matter has not to date been resolved to his satisfaction.
When the assistant examiner concerned was contacted it was through the deputy chief inspector. The assistant examiner involved was shown a number of scripts originally marked by him which had been re-marked, one of which was marked up from a C2 to A1 grade. On the basis of the re-marked scripts seen by him he believes a different standard was applied to the re-marking than that applied by him to the original marking based on his understanding of the marking guidelines. He has not to date been afforded any opportunity to discuss these matters formally with anybody from the art inspectorate. That is a disgrace. He considers the professional marking issues involved had not been satisfactorily addressed with him. The art inspector whom I met today feels a terrible injustice was done to this assistant examiner and he was not given fair play.
Six months after all this, the Price Waterhouse report indicates the Department should now, based on the outcome of its investigation, address these matters with the individuals concerned. It is rather late in the day for this type of development and the Department should have done so a long time ago. Clearly, as the report says, there was a predisposition to the view that upgradings were necessary in respect of the candidates work marked by this assistant examiner. The conclusion reached from the reviewed scripts from this school was not tested by representative sampling of other cases. If such sampling had occurred it is possible the initial conclusion would not have so strongly influenced subsequent events. The report comments on the lack of experience in appeals marking of the assistant examiners who carried out the re-marking, the absence of supervision of the new marks being awarded and the subsequent finding of two assistant examiners who were over generous in their marking at the appeal stage.
The extracts from the report show an extraordinary sequence of errors and irregular procedures adopted in the marking of these papers. It represents an appealling indictment of this process and raises questions as to whether these papers should have been re-marked in this fashion. The report's exposure of the farce which was the marking conference on 4 July raises a very serious question about the marking of the 11,000 art candidates in 1995.
The Price Waterhouse report suggests there is no reason to re-mark the entire work of all 11,000 candidates on the grounds that the 750 appeal candidates were representative of the marking of all the assistant examiners, therefore the standard of marking and the interpretation of marking guidelines used had been subject to an extensive recheck. I have questions about this. While the prospect of having to re-mark the entire 11,000 candidates would be a horrendous one with appalling implications for all concerned, if this report was to be truly independent, objective and consistent in its investigation, it should have raised this possibility. Having looked at it as objectively as I can, it seems to me there is a case for considering this horrendous proposition, because the marking conference was a farce and it determined the way in which all 11,000 art candidates were marked.
In relation to the second section of the report and the 47 upgradings arising from the failure to credit candidates with marks on certain components, again we read an extraordinary catalogue of errors. However, the key issue is the missing documentation. It is extremely disturbing that the craftwork concerned is still missing. What we should remember is that some of the craft work missing was actually ticked as being received by the Department. Page 31 makes clear that:
Apart from those cases affected by missing attendance rolls it has been possible to establish during the investigation that ticks exist opposite 17 of the 49 candidates not credited with a craft mark, indicating that the pieces were received.
Then the report goes on to say that "With the exception of four pieces which was located during the many searches for missing pieces the remaining pieces have never been located".
From this it seems that certain craft work was received by the Department but was not marked or found. Other items of craftwork submitted do not seem to be ticked as being received and no one seems to know where they ended up.
It seems extraordinary that Price Waterhouse did not follow up this issue. I asked a Dáil question endeavouring to find out when Price Waterhouse contacted An Post about this or indeed when Department personnel contacted An Post. I was told answers to these questions would be in the Price Waterhouse report. They are not in the report and I ask the Minister to clarify these two points. When was An Post first contacted about these packages, particularly the packages submitted from Sligo? This is a key issue. If the report confirms the packages in Sligo were signed for by an employee of a company whose premises are in Sligo, was any contact made with that company or were any of the personnel in the company interviewed? There is no detail about this in the Price Waterhouse report and this failure is a major deficiency.
Unfortunately I do not have sufficient time to debate the entire report.
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Price Waterhouse report. This comprehensive and lengthy report deals in a painstaking way with the so-called operational failures of the administration of the 1995 leaving certificate examination.
It is regrettable that the Minister has chosen to make the report available only to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Full publication would have been a much better option. I wonder whether our antiquated libel laws prevent full publication. Why did the Minister agree to the terms laid down by Price Waterhouse? How many reports have now been commissioned, some at enormous expense, which the Government subsequently tell us cannot be published due to legal constraints? As the Minister said, the failures in the system should be seen in the context of the scale and complexity of the examination. Nevertheless, failures and errors have occurred and it is important that confidence be restored to the examination system. One student quoted in today's newspapers said the most important thing is that what happened to him must not happen to anyone else. We cannot forget the human cost in all of this. The Minister has rightly apologised for the anxiety and distress caused and we should not minimise the effects. Has the Minister any intention of compensating the students involved?
We have learned that of the 14 students affected at the Ursuline College in Sligo, eight have just repeated their leaving certificate and several more who have taken jobs might have gone on to third level, according to their art teacher. Others have emigrated to England. The same teacher has expressed surprise that those most affected by the errors were not being provided with a copy of the report. She makes the point that an independent inquiry should tell everybody, but this report is being issued to a small number of people. The teacher also states that the worst thing is that the events have placed doubts in students' minds about how the system works. I ask the Minister to accept it is not the Opposition who have placed doubts in students' minds, it is the events that occurred last year.
Absolutely.
It is the duty of the Opposition to follow up on these events to ensure they are not swept under the carpet. Regarding the method of publication of the report, I remind the Minister that a reply was given to me on 27 February 1996 on her behalf by the Minister for Health who was taking a motion on the Adjournment concerning the 1995 art examination marking. I was told at the time that the report of the investigation would be made public. There can be no dispute about the undertaking given at that time.
It is on the record five times.
That undertaking was given many times. I note that in its reaction to the proposal that the 100 recommendations of the report be implemented immediately, the Public Service Executive Union warned that its members in the Department's examinations branch would not co-operate in implementing the recommendations until the report was released to the union. The Minister has spoken about the importance of implementing the recommendations, as have we all, but how will she go about dealing with this. In addition, the assistant general secretary of the Civil and Public Service Union said it was outrageous that his union was not being given a copy of the report. Why was an undertaking given that the report would be made public if that was not feasible? The Minister said this evening that her officials would brief the parties involved but I do not believe that will be acceptable. What they want is full publication of the report. The Minister should not have given an undertaking if she was not able to follow it through.
The most important issue arising from this fiasco is that procedures should be put in place immediately so that full confidence in the examinations system can be restored. That is why I want the 100 recommendations on the operation of the examinations branch implemented. The fact that such a huge number of recommendations have been made is indicative of a serious administrative problem in the section.
One of the most worrying aspects of the investigation was the revelation that the discovery of problems with the art paper, which had been harshly marked, was purely fortuitous. It is incredible that if the art inspector had not accidentally bumped into the officer dealing with the letter of complaint from a school in County Louth and had not already seen the papers the official had gone to retrieve and recognised them as ones he has considered to have been harshly marked, we might have had an even worse situation.
Given what Price Waterhouse said, the 359 students, unaware that they had been harshly marked and that the whole chain of event that brought those matters to light might not have happened, were extremely lucky to have their scripts reviewed and upgraded. Without the chance meeting we would still be no wiser about the errors surrounding the examination. Notwithstanding the inconsistencies involved and the debate on the marking of conferences horrendous difficulties were encountered. The report points to the lack of consistency in marking throughout the country with different examiners working to different standards.
We have heard about Jack B. Yeats a few times this evening and the scope for interpretation as to what would constitute valid answers to questions in the history and appreciation of art paper. These deficiencies were particularly relevant to the examination last year. The fact that Price Waterhouse made more than 100 recommendations on the operations of the examinations branch indicates the potential there must have been for error. It cites missing records, craftwork gone astray, internal misunderstandings and poor communication among staff. Each one of these on its own would give cause for misgivings. We have seen from the report that time and again there were many opportunities to spot the errors but exam work and check sheets went missing and the checking systems failed. The failures are catalogued: failure to follow up on missing components of submitted examinations; failure of totting checks to detect missing marks; failure to carry out necessary checks in appeals cases; failure of supervision in relation to queries; failures of communication relating to the appeals process; intense time pressures and absence of desirable procedures or controls. It was only through a fortuitous meeting and the complaints of teachers and parents that the catalogue of errors in marking was revealed.
The most worrying aspect is that it was only through the persistence of parents, students and teachers, members of the Opposition, in pursuing the rights of students that the mistakes in respect of the students at the Ursuline College in Sligo came to light. It is disturbing that we still have unanswered questions about the Ursuline College blunders. Where is the missing letter which was sent on 7 October? Why was the school not contacted? Why did a query sheet have the word "cleared" written across the top? Who is responsible for that purported clearance which enabled marks to be keyed in for those candidates with a mark for the component of the examination not having been credited to them? We do not know because that letter was unsigned. Where is the master list of all schools with candidates entered for craftwork? Where is the attendance roll which recorded the names of students from the Ursuline College in Sligo who took the craftwork paper? Where are the missing craftwork pieces? No conclusions could be reached about a cover up. We cannot say whether there was a cover up because there is no evidence.
Perhaps I am getting cynical as a result of my time in this House. If there was no evidence one would think it was because people were trying to cover up. I hope that is not the case in this instance but I am suspicious. I am concerned about reports of stock answers to examinations questions which indicate the level of cramming among leaving certificate students. The Department must examine this issue. Is it presiding over a proper examination system or a pressurised ritual, more concerned with students' ability to memorise information than establishing their standard of education?
My confidence in the appeals system has been shaken. The report states that there is not a standard nationwide response to requests for appeals. The manner in which complaints about the State examinations system were handled is ridiculous and appeared to depend to a large extent on where the students lived. I hope that will change following the identification by Price Waterhouse of that inconsistency.
It is alarming that an investigation into one leaving certificate examination should show more than 100 areas where improvements could be made, particularly bearing in mind that subsequent flaws were uncovered in other examinations. The Minister welcomed the ASTI statement. Of course there will be human errors, but sufficient checks and balances should be in place to minimise them. The checks and balances were not adhered to in this case. It is essential that the relevant methodology is in place to implement the system. A thorough overview of this creaking system must be carried out. The Minister must heed the calls of the National Parents Council for the immediate establishment of an independent appeals procedure.
Unfortunately, the report paints a less than flattering picture of the examinations branch — missing records, craft work gone astray, internal misunderstandings and poor communication among staff. Deputy Martin said that there may be personality problems, but that will be the case in any administration. The necessary checks and balances must be put in place to ensure that personalities do not interfere with the proper operation of the system.
A management survey of the examinations branch is currently under way, but it is being carried out by the Department of Education. Is it wise to proceed in that way? The Price Waterhouse report highlights the problem of dual hierarchies in many Government Departments, including the examinations branch. There are poor contact and reporting arrangements between the general service and specialist staff. This must be addressed.
The Price Waterhouse report is very detailed. Its recommendations are reasonable and appear to address the difficulties in the system. It is disingenuous to pretend that the Opposition is inferring there is something wrong with the examinations system and undermining confidence in it, when it has taken 100 recommendations to address the difficulties in the system. However, I am pleased the matter has been examined and I welcome the report. It is unfortunate it took so long to publish it, but that may have been because of its detailed and lengthy nature. It was foolish of the Minister to say she would make the report public merely to show the attempts were being made to ensure that such errors would not recur. As promised on her behalf in this House last February, she should make the report public.
I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on the Price Waterhouse report on the various operational failures which occurred in the 1995 leaving certificate art examination. While the report cannot undo the damage caused and distress suffered by students, parents and teachers in Sligo and elsewhere, it provides a detailed blueprint for action to ensure that the type of failures which occurred last year do not recur. It outlines the reasons for the numerous failures in the 1995 leaving certificate art examination and represents the most comprehensive and extensive review of the national certificate examinations.
The House should note that it was only as a result of complaints from parents, students and teachers that the long list of mistakes was discovered. If it were not for the persistence of the Ursuline College in Sligo, and one parent in particular, the long list of errors might not have been uncovered. The management and staff of the college, particularly the art teacher, were shocked at the results of the leaving certificate art examination last August. On 1 September the principal of the Ursuline College wrote to the Department of Education asking for a review of the art results of all students who took the craftwork option in the leaving certificate because their results were consistently and considerably lower than expected. The principal gave a list of student involved and the grades expected by their teacher, along with the grades received. The school was informed by the Department that this was not sufficient and that each pupil had to apply individually and pay the £25 fee, but the grades of those who applied for a review were not changed.
The board pointed out that at no time during the period was the college contacted by the Department to say that any of the craftwork was missing. It also stated that it was difficult to understand why the letter from the principal and the request for rechecks did not bring the mistakes to light in time to allow students take courses in the 1995-96 school year. In early October a parent of one of the Sligo students wrote to the Department expressing her disappointment with her daughter's original result and the unsuccessful outcome of her appeal. Having received no response to her correspondence she telephoned the Department in late November to know why she did not receive a reply. The Department official who received the telephone call requested the parent to forward a copy of the original letter. On receipt of that the official had the case investigated and within weeks it became obvious that a litany of errors had occurred and many students had lost out as a result.
Having been alerted to the deficiencies discovered by the initial investigation, the Minister for Education responded speedily and gave an assurance that a comprehensive and independent investigation would take place. The appointment of the Price Waterhouse firm to carry out the investigation was widely welcomed. I pay tribute to Price Waterhouse for its detailed and objective assessment of the system.
As a result of the report being distributed to every Member of the Oireachtas, the issue raised in it can be debated in the House and its contents can be the subject of public scrutiny. The report outlines that to date the original letter to the Department from the parent in Sligo is still missing. The report indicates that no trace could be found of attendance rolls for the Ursuline College which would have established whether students had sat the craft option of the art examination. It points out that the master list of schools with craft candidates could not be located, but that An Post has stated a package bearing the same reference number as the package of missing craft work from the Ursuline College was signed for as having been received by an employee of the company in Sligo. It further states that the package itself has never been traced and it is, therefore, not possible to say with any clarity what was the ultimate fate of this package.
The report also points out that due to misunderstandings and failed communications nobody ever followed up on the queries generated by the appeals examiners on the appeals marking sheets. It states that this was an unfortunate omission in that most of the 14 appeal candidates, including those from the Ursuline College in Sligo who were subsequently found to be missing marks for a component of the examination, were identified as queries on the appeals marking sheets by the appeals examiners. No action was taken in these cases.
The report states that the query sheet noting the absence of a craft mark for candidates from the Ursuline College was incorrectly marked ‘cleared'. The absence of documentation relevant to key stage in the process and the apparently negligent completion of the query sheet are clearly unsatisfactory and cannot be explained. It is also worthy of note that Price Waterhouse clearly points out that these aspects do not, in its view, constitute evidence of a deliberate concealment of material information and, in the course of its investigations, it uncovered no evidence of such concealment or of deliberate destruction of documents.
The consultants also indicated that when the Department became aware of the deficiencies in late December 1995 and early 1996, it apologised to the schools and candidates for the errors which had occurred. It informed the candidates of the effects of regarding on their applications for places under the CAO-CAS system and assured candidates and parents that any claim for compensation arising from the errors which had occurred would be dealt with fairly and reasonably on a case by case basis.
Representatives of the Department visited the Ursuline College in Sligo in January and that meeting was attended by representatives of the board of management, school management, the art teacher and the parents of the students affected. In essence, the report points out that the Department of Education responded quickly to the case when it came to light. The school, the candidates and the public were quickly informed of the problem and of the actions taken to deal with the case.
The report clearly points out that the leaving certificate art examination is one of the most complex, if not the most complex, examination subject in terms of administration and issue of results. This inherent complexity and the use of non-standard processes and procedures, not applying to other subjects, were major contributors to the errors and failures which occurred. Many of the recommendations contained in the report are aimed at bringing the administration of the art examination more into line with the systems and procedures used for other subjects.
The report indicates that many errors and failures occurred in relation to the 1995 leaving certificate examination and it states that there is no single cause for these errors and failures. The reasons for their occurrences are, in most cases, complex and multifaceted. However, it also points out that in the majority of instances no satisfactory excuse other than time pressures can be advanced as to why these largely avoidable errors occurred.
While any system depending on human input is prone to error, the reality is that in 1995 there was a degree of error which would be totally unacceptable in any national examination system. The Minister was right to appoint an independent group of consultants to investigate the numerous operational failures and to make recommendations to prevent reoccurrence. The report in its findings clearly justifies the Minister's decision to have the system fully and independently investigated. I welcome the fact that the most important recommendations contained in the report have already been implemented in respect of the 1996 certificate examinations. While the Department has again expressed its regret for the anxiety and distress caused to the students who were affected and to their parents and teachers, students should now receive fair compensation from the Department.
I am glad we have obtained this report at long last. If I were Minister for Education, which I hope I will be, I would be quite upset about it. I know the Minister was genuine when she said students deserve better and that she hopes to repair any damage done to confidence in State examinations. People reading about this in the newspapers would be very concerned. This report has opened a Pandora's box and raises more questions than it answers. My colleague referred to the 359 upgrades which arose from a letter written by a principal in a school in the north east. If that person had not written the letter, we might never have discovered that there was a need to recheck those marks. I am sure the Minister is as concerned as those of us on this side of the House about that. If, as Deputy Bree said, the principal, teachers and parents of pupils in the Ursuline College and those in the school in Navan had not pushed, we might not have known about this. That is a profound problem.
The Minister has a problem in her Department. I do not believe she has confidence in it or that her staff are particularly happy. Obviously, the Department of Education's examinations branch is understaffed. The report states that a static number of staff have been available in the examinations branch and that there has been a decrease of 33 per cent in permanent clerical level staffing since 1990. Although temporary staff are available at examination times, the Department is understaffed and there is panic when something goes wrong. Everybody seems to be under pressure, especially in relation to second round CAO offers. One of the problems the Minister faces is financial and it needs to be addressed.
There were guidelines but they were not clear in relation to the art examination. It reminds me of debates in the House about guidelines which are breached or variously interpreted. It is obvious from the report that the preparatory work for the art examination was sloppy. It states that only 170 of the 260 sample twenties marked on the day of the conference had all four components of the examination present, an area where there were no checks and balances. If the four components of the art examination were not present it should have clicked that there might be a problem which should be checked out.
I would like to refer to question 4. I am not an art student and, although I appreciate art, I could not draw a straight line. However, if an answer is right it is right and if it is wrong it is wrong. If we are to give an alternative interpretation to right and wrong, it should be standard so everyone knows where they stand. The report also states that somebody was upgraded from a fail to a pass — to 50 per cent — in one question. I am concerned about objectivity as regards remarking. If there is no objectivity in a subjective academic subject, there are problems. The inconsistencies by the Department in dealing with letters is unacceptable because inconsistency breeds suspicion. In 1994 there were 5,000 appeals while in 1995 there were 8,400, an increase of more than 3,000. There must be a proper system with sufficient staff to deal with that matter. In the Ursuline college in Navan there were two rechecks and a teacher was consulted about the matter whereas in other schools an average mark was used, but that is no solace to the children and teachers involved.
We have all looked forward to this report. If I was an art student in the Ursuline college I would like to know what happened my craft work, but unfortunately we have not been able to find out. It is unacceptable that four items still have not been addressed — the attendance roll and master list cannot be found, in the absence of a craft mark for candidates from the Ursuline college, Sligo, the matter was incorrectly marked "cleared" and the letter of 7 October from the parent cannot be found. The report states that that is unsatisfactory and cannot be explained. If I was an Ursuline student I would like to know what happened my craft work and would be concerned that an answer has not been forthcoming.
I referred previously to the departmental staff. If I was running a business and a problem arose I would ask the opinion of those working for me, otherwise I could be brought before the courts. It is almost unbelievable that, even though the Department went to some expense to have this report carried out, the people involved are still unhappy. The report states that, based on the outcome of the investigation, the Department should address the matters with the individuals concerned. Obviously the chief examiner is concerned because he or she was not involved in the re-marking. There was no contact with the original art inspector who marked the examination papers too harshly — I would even question whether they were marked too harshly because there are no basic standards and no system of checks and balances.
There are 100 recommendations in this report, which shows that problems existed in the system. Two of the recommendations have been taken on board, one of which is that the craft work should be examined in the school. That will, however, give rise to security and accommodation problems — most schools already experience problems with accommodation. I am sure teachers will be concerned about that matter.
I am unhappy with the lack of clarity in regard to the loss of craft work from the Ursuline college in Navan. There was a problem with rechecking prior to the second round offers being made and we would not be aware of it if it had not been for the fact that the matter was pushed on an alternative agenda, which was available to the media and the Opposition. I hope we will reach a position where there is complete confidence in the system, but that can be done only by reviewing the entire system. We are talking here about only one subject, art. For genuine concerns to be addressed, there must be independence in the system. I have tremendous regard for the examinations section of the Department and am aware of the work done by teachers in setting and correcting examination papers, much of which is not recognised, but independence is essential. Given that this problem arose with art, it could also happen with another subject.
Too much emphasis is placed on pushing children into taking subjects such as science, mathematics and so on. There should be a degree of flexibility in that regard. As a result of the problem in this case I hope children do not turn away from art, music and other academic subjects. There are many questions to be answered and much work to be done to ensure young people are happy with the system.
I thank Deputies for participating in this debate. I welcome the remarks made and the concerns expressed, which I share. However, I do not set the papers or mark them —
The Minister is the boss.
—— and when things go wrong I do not bury my mistakes.
It takes the Minister a long time to find out when things go wrong.
When it was suggested by the Opposition spokesperson that an internal investigation would be sufficient, I disagreed.
That was not stated.
I believed from the beginning that this was a serious matter requiring an independent investigation, the result of which was laid in Deputies' pigeonholes yesterday.
We are dealing with an education system where there is 82 per cent participation in examinations, with most students completing the senior cycle and sitting the leaving certificate examination while many go on to third level education or post-leaving certificate courses. The importance of their examination results increase each year. Approximately 1.3 million objects, papers, practical or craft packages, are involved in marking the examinations of 135,000 students.
For the benefit of Deputies who expressed concern about the different aspects of the 1995 examination system, I repeat that two particularly significant changes have now been implemented. Marking of the craftwork in the 1996 examinations will take place in the schools and, more importantly, the modification of the computer system wil ensure that we will be automatically alerted to error reports if the marks are not recorded at the time.
It is important also to repeat the announcement I made at the teacher conferences about the computer and setting up a helpline in the Department of Education on the day the results are made available. There will be much more information on the paper giving students their results and they can be assured that the results will be appropriate to the examinations they sat. If there is any doubt in that regard, however, an examination helpline will be opened that day in the Department of Education.
A list has been drawn up of procedures to be put in place to ensure these errors never happen again. On each occasion I have spoken about this matter I have apologised to the students, their teachers and schools who experienced a failure in the system in 1995. I am conscious also that we must retain confidence in the examination system and I say to those who began the round of practical examinations at Easter and who have just completed the written and art examinations that measures have been put in place for the 1996 cohort. These include a new and strengthened examination structure in art; an improved marking scheme; more precise instructions at marking conferences; enhanced monitoring of the marking process; query resolution processes; signing of procedures and enhanced processes dealing in particular with art appeals.
Price Waterhouse has advised that we establish an independent implementation group in the Department to put in place the other recommendations. That group will be made up of representatives of senior management in the Department of Education, the inspectorate and the examinations branch. I have already committed myself to the implementation of the group's recommendations in addition to the measures already in place which Price Waterhouse assure me will alert us to any human error. In that way no student will be adversely affected.
I thank Deputy Keogh for her acknowledgement of the painstaking way in which this report was compiled and the information contained therein. I would have welcomed full publication of the report but given the advice I had——
It was not advice. It was a condition imposed on the Minister.
——I thought it was better to make the full report available to each Deputy rather than have any suggestion that I bridged any part of it. The full report received by me last week was made available to the Deputies. Deputy Keogh said the truth will come out but if Deputies read the report they will see there is full transparency in regard to the mistakes that were made in 1995.
When was An Post contracted?
Deputy Bree thanked me for putting in place a comprehensive review and congratulated us on an independent investigation by an internationally reputable firm. Every detail that has been made available to me has been made available to Deputies.
Deputy Coughlan referred to the concerns of Department officials. There is a commitment that the implementation group will be involved with the different sections. I do not doubt Deputy Coughlan's ability to one day be a Minister for Education but she should be glad——
What about my colleague, Deputy Martin?
I think the Minister for demoting me.
——I am bequeathing to her an examination system that has been the subject of a root and branch review.
I am sure Deputy Coughlan will have the confidence and trust of her staff.
Order, please.
By the time she might reach Marlborough Street I have no doubt the 100 recommendations will have been implemented.
The Price Waterhouse report was a review of the examination system. We must now await the publication of the second task Price Waterhouse was requested to do, namely, an examination of the appeals system——
That will take another six months.
——for all subjects. In response to comments from the partners in education, the ASTI and the parents——
What about the Minister's own public service union and her Department?
——when the Price Waterhouse report is in the public domain it will be timely to consult the partners in education and agree the implementation of a strengthened and confident appeals system.
That concludes statements on the report.