Joint Committee on Education and Skills debate -
Thursday, 13 Oct 2016

State Examinations: Motions

Chairman

We will now deal with the motions from Deputies Thomas Byrne and Catherine Martin regarding the 10% loss of marks in the junior certificate English exams for students in ASTI-staffed schools.

Before we commence, I advise members that if the motions or amended motions are agreed by the committee, the agreed motion will be reported to both Houses. In addition, the report containing the agreed motion will be sent to the Minister for Education and Skills for a response. Given that we have two motions on the same issue, I propose to ask Deputies Byrne and Martin to move and speak on their respective motions. I will then ask Deputy Daly to move and speak on his amendments to Deputy Byrne's motion. Deputy Byrne submitted his motion first, hence I will take his first and members may ask questions. Following the conclusion of the debate I will put the questions in accordance with standing orders.

Deputy Thomas Byrne has submitted a motion that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills, being concerned that students in ASTI-staffed schools will automatically and unfairly lose 10% in their English exams this academic year, recognises that talks between the Department of Education and Skills and the ASTI are continuing in an effort to resolve this dispute but, despite these talks, the ongoing dispute between the ASTI and the Department over changes to the junior certificate cycle is a significant cause of frustration and concern to students and their families; that the position of the Department of Education and Skills that the students affected by the dispute, but not other students, will automatically lose 10% of their marks through no fault of the students, is deeply unfair to those students and cannot be allowed to happen and is placing an undue burden of stress on the students; and calls on the Minister for Education and Skills to instruct the State Examinations Commission, together with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, co-ordinated by the Department of Education and Skills, to devise and implement this year a new method of assessment for students who will be unable to undertake the classroom-based assessment of their English junior certificate cycle due to the non-co-operation with the junior cycle changes by ASTI members; and to immediately withdraw the threat of the punishment of students by the deduction of 10% from their English exams.

Deputy Catherine Martin has submitted a motion that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills asks the Minister for Education and Skills to move quickly to put in place a plan B to protect those students who might lose out on 10% of their grade in English due to the ongoing dispute between the ASTI and the Government.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I move:

That the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills, being concerned that students in ASTI-staffed schools will automatically and unfairly lose 10% in their English exams this academic year, recognises that talks between the Department of Education and Skills and the ASTI are continuing in an effort to resolve this dispute but, despite these talks, the ongoing dispute between the ASTI and the Department over changes to the junior certificate cycle is a significant cause of frustration and concern to students and their families; that the position of the Department of Education and Skills that the students affected by the dispute, but not other students, will automatically lose 10% of their marks through no fault of the students, is deeply unfair to those students and cannot be allowed to happen and is placing an undue burden of stress on the students; and calls on the Minister for Education and Skills to instruct the State Examinations Commission, together with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, co-ordinated by the Department of Education and Skills, to devise and implement this year a new method of assessment for students who will be unable to undertake the classroom-based assessment of their English junior certificate cycle due to the non-co-operation with the junior cycle changes by ASTI members; and to immediately withdraw the threat of the punishment of students by the deduction of 10% from their English exams.

Over the past two weeks, since I tabled the motion, I have continued my engagement on behalf of my party with the ASTI, the TUI and the Department of Education and Skills. As the motion acknowledges, talks are taking place between the Department and the ASTI on the issue of junior certificate reform. I understand talks will take place again next Wednesday.

There seems to have been a huge gap between last November and the formation of the Government in May when much time was lost and wasted by the Department and the Government. This is deeply unfortunate and this time cannot be got back. We will have a ballot result from the ASTI, which is protesting outside the Dáil today. Many things are happening. Fianna Fáil remains deeply concerned about the 10% of marks, as do parents and children. At this point, we are at a few seconds to midnight in this process. If the ASTI is to do what the Department is asking it to do, or if there is to be any other move, it will have to ballot its members which will take some time.

The interests of children must be at the centre of all of this. Talks are continuing, and I do not want to do anything to upset those talks, and the sentiment is in the motion. While the talks continue and there is still hope that officials and the Government can sort this out with the ASTI, and the ASTI might be in a position to move on this and I cannot say whether it is or not, it might be wise for me not to put this motion today but rather to withdraw it, with leave of the committee, to resubmit it at some point in the near future, to allow these talks to continue and not create an atmosphere around them. It might be more helpful if we did not pass a motion today.

The fact we are having this discussion here today, with two motions and an amendment to the motions on the table, should alert the Department and the ASTI to the deep concern the committee has about the issue, and the various parties on the committee who have engaged on the issue in the weeks since I have tabled the motion. We want to see this sorted out in the best interests of the children.

I will withdraw my motion, but what Deputy Martin does is a matter for herself. We will not be for or against. We will abstain on amendments or motions to be consistent with our position today, but I may have to raise the issue again.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Byrne. It is a matter of grave concern for all of us, students and their parents. As to the possibility of tabling this motion in future, I suggest that the Deputy do so as he sees fit.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Sure.

Chairman

It will be up to him and not the committee. I call Deputy Martin, who has a motion on the same issue.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move:

That the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills asks the Minister for Education and Skills to move quickly to put in place a plan B to protect those students who might lose out on 10% of their grade in English due to the ongoing dispute between the ASTI and the Government.

Recently, the Minister for Education and Skills appeared before the committee and said that he could not guarantee that junior cycle students sitting the English course would not lose out on 10% of their grades next year. This is causing them and their parents considerable worry and uncertainty. Talks are continuing, but a plan B is needed. Since we do not know what the end result of the talks will be, the Minister must put a plan B in place for the students. It should not be the case that thousands of junior cycle English students will enter exam halls next June knowing that they are down 10% before they even put pen to paper. That would be unacceptable. The Minister has a duty to put a contingency plan in place. The results of the ballot will be revealed tomorrow and, as Deputy Byrne mentioned, the ASTI is protesting outside Leinster House today, but we need to put our children front and centre. I appeal to the Minister to address this issue.

The aim of my motion is to put a plan B in place in order that no students are worried as they face their first State examinations. They are already worried. I am a former English teacher. I know how stressed out students get. There is so much talk about the stresses upon students these days. Given that the first State exam places them under extreme stress, can we not soothe their worries and their parents' worries by showing that, if the dispute continues into June, the Department and the Minister will take action and put a plan in place?

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. Deputy Jim Daly has submitted an amendment to Deputy Martin's motion which reads that, despite these talks, the ongoing dispute between the ASTI and the Department over changes to the junior cycle is a significant cause of frustration and concern to students and their families. His amendment would replace that to the effect that the position that students affected by the dispute and not others will automatically lose 10% of their marks through no fault of the students is deeply unfair to these students and cannot be allowed to happen and is placing an undue burden of stress on the students; that the ASTI's current directive is now directly negatively impacting on examination students; that such selective targeting of students is an unprecedented and wholly unjustifiable industrial relations strategy; that, as a result of the directive, current ASTI English teachers are now in their third year of delivering a new curriculum for which they have been prevented from receiving full professional development; that the Minister for Education and Skills requested the ASTI to provide an immediate derogation from its directive for current teachers of English while talks between the Department and the union on the junior cycle proceed; that the Department remains in discussions with the ASTI on this issue; and that the Minister for Education and Skills remains willing and available to engage with the ASTI on this issue; urges the ASTI to engage positively on this issue with a view to finding a solution; and calls on the ASTI to respond immediately and positively to the Minister's request for an immediate derogation from its directive for current teachers of English while talks between the Department and the union on the junior cycle proceed, and to engage urgently with the Department to resolve outstanding concerns. I invite the Deputy to speak in support of his amendment.

Deputy Jim Daly

I move that Deputy Martin's motion be amended to read:

That the position that students affected by the dispute and not others will automatically lose 10% of their marks through no fault of the students is deeply unfair to these students and cannot be allowed to happen and is placing an undue burden of stress on the students; that the ASTI's current directive is now directly negatively impacting on examination students; that such selective targeting of students is an unprecedented and wholly unjustifiable industrial relations strategy; that, as a result of the directive, current ASTI English teachers are now in their third year of delivering a new curriculum for which they have been prevented from receiving full professional development; that the Minister for Education and Skills requested the ASTI to provide an immediate derogation from its directive for current teachers of English while talks between the Department and the union on the junior cycle proceed; that the Department remains in discussions with the ASTI on this issue; and that the Minister for Education and Skills remains willing and available to engage with the ASTI on this issue; urges the ASTI to engage positively on this issue with a view to finding a solution; and calls on the ASTI to respond immediately and positively to the Minister's request for an immediate derogation from its directive for current teachers of English while talks between the Department and the union on the junior cycle proceed, and to engage urgently with the Department to resolve outstanding concerns.

I thank the Chairman for facilitating this conversation. No one has a monopoly on concern. We all share a concern for the students and their education. That we are discussing this matter is welcome. As Deputy Byrne stated, this has had an impact, given that there appears to be some movement. That is welcome and positive. As a committee, we can play a part, but we must be careful when going down the road of tabling motions to the Dáil. By doing so, we are involving ourselves in a level of detail that might not be fully known to us. I have reservations about the committee tabling motions related to an industrial relations situation and sending them to the Dáil. This is not for a second meant to take anything from our ability to discuss the matter, but getting the motion right will be difficult and challenging for us as a committee. We could make matters worse rather than better.

At the heart of this situation are the students. Other Deputies alluded to this. There is discrimination between students who are being taught by ASTI members and those who are being taught by TUI members. By tabling a motion to advance a plan B for a set of students over another set of students, we as a committee are furthering the existing apartheid. That would be wrong. All students should be treated equally. As a committee, we need to tread carefully in how we proceed in this instance.

By insisting on putting a plan B in place, we are also asking the Minister to facilitate a directive by the union, which I am not comfortable doing. I do not believe that it was the intention, but the directive segregates one group of students from the other. I would have a difficulty with that.

By involving ourselves in industrial relations disputes in schools, we could be setting a precedent and be drawn into any other issue, grievance or division that arises if we proceed with a motion directing that a plan B be put in place.

What is of significance is that we would be undermining the integrity of the State exams by creating a plan B for one set of students over another. By directing the Minister to create a plan B and, therefore, a divide, we would be fundamentally challenging the integrity of our examination system. I appeal to the committee to be very careful before doing something like that.

As my amendment points out, that the union's directive targets the students' exams - I do not believe that it was intended in that way - is unprecedented. The students are pawns in this situation. That is regrettable. I urge talks and hope that there will be greater immediacy as a result of this debate, but I would prefer not to agree the motion.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. I will allow other members to contribute.

Senator Maria Byrne

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Daly. He has articulated it well. This is setting a precedent and we could be supporting one group above the other. We must be cautious as well as fair to all involved. I support the Deputy's amendment.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I have already spoken on my motion. I assure Deputy Daly that I understand all the ramifications of the motion. Nothing that has emerged since submitting it has come as any surprise to me in terms of the reactions of various parties. I have engaged with all those involved. At this point, it would be helpful for the ongoing talks that I withdraw my motion. However, that does not get away from the fact that the children's marks are on the negotiating table. Whoever's fault that is does not matter. They are there. That must be the committee's main concern. The committee is entitled to take a view on this, but we should not do so today.

Deputy Jim Daly

We are discussing Deputy Catherine Martin's motion.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I am discussing Deputy Martin's motion as well.

Deputy Jim Daly

I am trying to be helpful. I thought I heard Deputy Byrne say it had been withdrawn.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I am discussing Deputy Martin's motion while also responding to points raised on my motion.

Chairman

The points made were not directly related to Deputy Byrne's motion.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I will speak to Deputy Martin's motion which is not hugely different from mine.

Deputy Jim Daly

I just wanted to clarify that we are discussing Deputy Martin's motion.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

My motion and Deputy Martin's are similar. The have the same intent in that they both seek to have this issue sorted out from the point of view of the children. In regard to Deputy Martin's motion, we are in the last seconds of this process. I had intended to propose that an independent mediator be appointed but, of course, that has already happened. It could happen again, I do not know. It seems to me that a huge amount of time was lost in the interregnum from last November to May this year. That time cannot be bought back. If Deputy Martin pursues her motion, to be consistent and to allow the talks next week a chance Fianna Fáil will abstain. Perhaps at that point the joint committee would invite in officials from the Department of Education and Skills and the State Examinations Commission to get their views on the matter and to encourage them to engage with the unions, including the TUI. This matter must be resolved. I hope and pray that the talks next week will be successful. I believe with a bit of give and take, and putting the interests of the students at the centre, a resolution will be found. The pay issue is separate. The committee is not dealing with that issue at all. As I said, in this matter the children's interests must be first.

Perhaps in terms of my motion and Deputy Martin's motion we should stay out of this for the moment in that in terms of this very discussion a signal has been sent out that we want this matter sorted and the children, in particular, looked after.

Senator Robbie Gallagher

The common thread running through these three motions is the children and the stress this situation is causing them at a time, as outlined by Deputy Martin in her presentation, when they are faced with taking their first State examination, which in itself is a stressful enough experience. This discussion has been worthwhile. Ultimately all we are seeking is an outcome. It is unfortunate that the children appear to be the meat in the sandwich but hopefully, Deputy Thomas Byrne said, a resolution is close. For that reason, I will follow the same line as my colleague, Deputy Byrne.

Chairman

By way of clarification, we are discussing two motions and an amendment to one of the motions.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I have moved my motion. I will not be supporting the amendment because it seeks to remove the action which I believe is needed to protect the children and to signal to the Minister that he needs to ensure they do not lose the 10%. I am aware that the talks are ongoing but I believe the Minister needs to put a contingency plan in place.

On the point regarding undermining the integrity of the examination, I do not believe that is the case. There are already alternative models in operation which could help resolve this problem and provide a guarantee to students that they will not be adversely affected. For example, students who do not participate in the oral component of examinations at junior cycle have their written examinations marked out of 100%. This means that students who do not take the oral component of a language examination do not automatically lose marks. This model, or an alternative, may not be ideal but we have to accept the urgent need to have a contingency plan in place. It must be acknowledged that putting in place such planning requires a great deal of preparation and as such the process needs to start now.

Deputy Jim Daly

I have heard the ASTI make the point that there is precedence in this regard. We are all concerned for students. On Deputy Martin's point regarding precedence, this situation is completely different. Taking a student-centred view as opposed to a union-centred view of this particular issue the student has the choice on whether to take the oral and he or she is wholly in control. The student is then marked according to his or her choice. In this case, students have no choice. The decision is being made for them or against by the union. We cannot compare an apple and an orange or this situation with the oral examinations process. If a student decides to take the oral examination he or she will be awarded 40% of the marks for doing so but a student can also decide not to take the oral examination. In that case the student gets to choose but in the situation about which we are speaking now the student has no choice. That is why this is discriminatory. My fear is that this would undermine the State Examinations Commission.

Chairman

All of the points are well made. We are all concerned and want to see this matter resolved. Is the amendment to the motion agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Jim Daly

I do not propose to seek a vote on the amended motion. As I said earlier, I would prefer that this committee would not put any motion forward because I do not believe that is helpful at this stage. As such, I am not proposing that the motion, as amended, be forwarded to the Dáil.

Chairman

The Deputy must then withdraw it.

Deputy Jim Daly

What do I need to withdraw?

Chairman

We still have to vote on the motion. Am I correct that Deputy Daly does not want to withdraw the amendment to the motion, but he does not want the amended motion put forward?

Deputy Jim Daly

I would welcome if Deputy Martin would agree that the committee not send forward any motion.

Chairman

Deputy Martin has already said she is putting her motion forward. It is clear then that she is not agreeing to Deputy Daly's suggestion that no motion be sent forth.

Deputy Jim Daly

Am I correct that Deputy Martin's motion has been amended?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Jim Daly

What we are discussing now is the amended motion.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

The motion now before us calls on the ASTI to do what the Department is asking, which I think amounts to the committee taking the Department's side of the argument. It is up to Deputy Martin but we are trying to be balanced.

Deputy Catherine Martin

In terms of procedure, when does one withdraw an amendment?

Chairman

It is too late now to withdraw it.

Deputy Jim Daly

I am not withdrawing my amendment.

Chairman

I know but the Deputy wants to withdraw the amended motion.

Deputy Jim Daly

I do not want the motion, as amended, to be sent forth to the Dáil.

Chairman

I do not think the Deputy can do that.

Deputy Jim Daly

When the Chairman puts the question on whether the motion, as amended, is agreed, I can disagree.

Chairman

I can only put the question if members seek a vote.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

The motion that will be sent forth by the committee will be the amended motion, which is a Fine Gael motion, and not Deputy Martin's motion.

Deputy Jim Daly

It will be my motion in Deputy Martin's name.

Chairman

It will still be a motion from the committee.

Deputy Jim Daly

I believe the committee would be better off not proceeding further on this issue. We should not send forth a motion on the matter to the Dáil.

Chairman

We are speaking now to the motion, as amended. The committee now has to vote on whether the motion, as amended, is agreed to. Do members wish to call a vote on the question?

Deputy Jim Daly

We are talking about sending my motion to the Dáil in the name of the committee.

Chairman

Yes. Does Deputy Martin want to call a vote on this?

Deputy Catherine Martin

I do not want the motion, as amended, being sent to the Dáil.

Deputy Jim Daly

Neither do I.

Chairman

There is no option on that one, Deputy Martin.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Deputy Martin would need to withdraw her motion.

Deputy Catherine Martin

What is before us now is a completely different animal to the motion I put forward.

Chairman

Yes but that is what is in front us now.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

That is why I suggested it be withdrawn.

Chairman

Either we have a vote or it is withdrawn as it is.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Who decides whether it is withdrawn?

Deputy Jim Daly

I propose we withdraw the motion.

Senator Maria Byrne

I second that proposal.

Chairman

We have a proposal and a seconder that the amended motion that was originally put forward by Deputy Martin be withdrawn. We can call for a vote on that matter or have a vote on the amendment. Either way, it will be the same result in terms of numbers. We can have a vote or the motion, as amended, could be withdrawn.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Is that down to me?

Chairman

It is for the Deputy to withdraw it.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I wish to put on the record that I will withdraw it but the reason being the amendment has completely turned the motion on its head and would put the dispute front and centre, which is not needed. My motion was about putting the child, that is, the children suffering as a result of the dispute, front and centre. For the record, I am withdrawing the motion because the nature of it has completely changed.

Motion, as amended, withdrawn.

Chairman

That is fair enough and understood, and I thank the Deputy.

I accept that sometimes motions can be contentious even though we all have the same end goal in terms of trying to resolve the issue. We might examine the possibility of the committee proposing resolutions that contain everyone's input and are agreed by us all. We will not be able to do it at this point in terms of this issue. However, we should consider that process for issues on which we all agree but there is a question on how to deal with them.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I completely agree. I know the engagement was brief this morning but I discussed my position with every party. I thought it was useful to do so. The matter, however, has been dealt with now. The point is that this issue has reached the committee and we have collectively decided not to put a motion on the record to the Dáil in order to help the talks. Deputy Catherine Martin has now decided that. The point is that it is done in the context of talks between the ASTI and the Government taking place next week. We do not want to stand in the way of those talks and we are encouraging both sides to conclude them successfully. By having the discussion and not putting forward a motion, we have decided that we will not interfere in that process for the moment although we obviously have huge concerns about what is happening.

Deputy Jim Daly

The reason I do not wish for the committee to proceed with this motion to the next level is that I think we should be avoiding division and votes in so far as practicable on an issue such as this one where we all share the same common goal and concern. My main driving force is to avoid division and votes where possible.

Chairman

It was helpful and useful to have the debate today and I thank the members for their support and agreement on the way forward. We need to examine the resolution process, however. Further, other members asked to table motions after the deadline had passed and I had a discretion on whether to allow them. I decided not to allow them as we would be here forever if we did not stick to the deadline and would have ongoing problems and issues. We are now clear on where we stand on this matter and I know we all hope there will be a positive resolution following the talks. As there is no other business at this point, and I am conscious the Dáil and the Seanad will sit at 11.30 a.m., the committee will adjourn.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.35 a.m. until 9.00 a.m. on Thursday, 27 October 2016.