Deputy Kavanagh gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the leaving certificate honours English paper on which the word "or" was omitted, leaving students obliged to answer two questions.
Adjournment Debate. - Leaving Certificate Examination Paper.
We have just listened to a very serious and important debate. It is not my intention to delay the House unduly. I raised this issue on the Order of Business this morning. I was correctly ruled out of order by you, Sir, on the basis that it was not appropriate at that time. I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to raise it on the Adjournment this evening.
It is a matter of urgent national importance, particularly to the tens of thousands of young people, and their parents, involved in the leaving certificate examination. The honours English leaving certificate examination undertaken yesterday created widespread confusion among students. That confusion was occasioned by a serious misprint or what might more appropriately be called an omission from the afternoon honours English paper when the word "or" was inadvertently omitted from the fiction questions. As we now know this led students to believe that they had to answer both parts of each question rather than part (i) or part (ii).
In The Irish Times today the representative of the Teachers' Union of Ireland, Mr. Tom Hunt, is reported as describing the mistake as “a disaster”. He was quoted as having said that it created chaos in examination centres. That newspaper claimed they had received telephone calls from schools around the country where students had emerged from examination halls in tears because of the confusion. Sometimes newspapers are given to a little hyperbole on such occasions. With the tension that abounds among students facing their most critical examination, I can well imagine how the first paper of the leaving certificate bearing an error would lead to confusion and indeed tears when they found that the time allowed for the completion of a particular paper was totally inadequate because of a misprint or mistake of which they were unaware, or of which they were not made aware by the relevant supervisors. If students answered both parts of the question then undoubtedly they would not have had sufficient time to adequately answer the other questions on the paper.
I understand that a spokesman for the Department apologised to the students and their families for the mistake made. As a lady of some ill repute some years ago used to say "He would, wouldn't he"; that so far as it goes is all right. He is also reported to have said that if students answered the two parts of each question he would ensure that they would get credit for so doing. So far as it goes that is acceptable. But the phrase which prompted me to raise the matter this morning and to request the Minister to come in here this evening and make a statement was when the spokesman — if he is accurately reported — said: "We will do our utmost to ensure that no student suffers as a result". The use of the word "utmost" put the fear of God in me. I might add that I have not a child sitting the examination though I will have in a year or two. But I and all Members will know people who have children sitting the examination. For a Department spokesman to say that they would do their utmost, a glaring mistake having been made by the Department, is not sufficient. Had he said that they would ensure that no student would suffer as a result that would have been acceptable and perhaps I might not have asked to raise the matter this evening.
There are some worrying aspects of this occurrence. I understood that papers are proof read. Examination papers are not like newspapers which must be produced in a great hurry. There may be a certain amount of pressure on examination setters to produce papers within a certain time but it would not be anything like the pressure on somebody who has to produce a newspaper and proof read it very quickly. Even then I do not imagine that proof readers must read every subject, there being specialists in each subject. Examination papers having been proof read, if at the last minute there is found to be a mistake, then I understand that an erratum sheet is attached to or delivered with the relevant paper to each of the 800 or so examination centres. That would mean that the officer presiding over an examination centre would be able to inform students sitting the examination that there was an error or omission in the paper and which would make an enormous difference to the time available to students to complete the paper.
At the very least one would have to claim that this mistake arose through carelessness. I consider it gross neglect that a paper should have been issued to examination centres, given the time provided for proof reading, also given the fact that no erratum sheet was issued pointing out that the paper contained an error.
Since it was in the afternoon that students actually sat the examination surely somebody at some stage yesterday morning would have been aware that a mistake had been made and that telephone communication could have been established with examination centres. I am sure that in almost every examination centre now there is a telephone. This was such a serious mistake I would have thought that the Minister might have sought some help from other Departments in establishing contact with every examination centre — or by way of telegrams — to so inform centres before the papers were opened. This would have meant that the error could have been pointed out to students. It should also be borne in mind that one point gained or lost in the leaving certificate could mean an enormous difference to a student's whole future. I hope the Minister will make a statement tonight and will clear up any misunderstanding there is in this regard.
I am aware that the consensus among teachers is that there should not be a resetting of this English paper. I would be inclined to agree with that provided the Department can assure students the necessary change will be made or that extra marks will be given to take account of the mistake which was made in that paper. If a student feels that because of some error he has done badly in his first paper, and an important one such as English, then perhaps that will affect his performance in future papers. It is vital that the Minister should reassure students they will not suffer as a result of this mistake. I will go so far as to say that if after the examination, students can prove that this caused a problem, those cases should be taken into account and perhaps something could be done for them in September or around that time.
I agree there should not be a new paper. Some students will have done well in the one they have already sat for and they would probably be reluctant to sit for a totally different paper. I hope the assurance which I am sure the Minister will give to young people who are doing this exam, will allay their fears. Again, I repeat that the mistake should not have been made. What happened was not good enough. I hope the Minister can assure us that the remainder of the exam papers will be read and re-read before they are sent out. I imagine the remaining papers will be read more times than those in any previous exam to ensure there is no mistake. Students must have confidence that the traditional accuracy of exam papers over the years will continue so that their ability will be fairly assessed in the rest of the exams. A mistake has been made. It is unfortunate and I am afraid some damage may have been done. I hope the arrangements that will be made in the correction of those papers will give the results which would have accrued had the mistake not been made. I hope the arrangements the Minister will make will ensure nobody suffers because of this error.
I am sure the Minister's normally placid humour which she demonstrates in the House was not so placid in the Department this morning and that certain people were given a piece of her mind when she heard about this problem. However, I ask for more than that. On behalf of the students doing the exam and on behalf of the parents who have to put up with the worry of putting students through so many years of expensive education I am asking her to assure them that the results will reflect the ability of every student who is doing this exam.
I am sure the Minister, as a former teacher, can very much appreciate the situation that arose throughout the country yesterday and the concern of the pupils sitting the exams, the teachers and the parents. The exam which tens of thousands of pupils sat for yesterday will decide their future, what profession they will follow and what work they may get in the future. The leaving certificate examination will definitely determine their lifestyle for the remainder of their lives. To find that there was an error in the examination paper yesterday was very disconcerting. It was the first exam and it was absolutely imperative that the pupils should start out with confidence, that they get the feel of the exam, that they would come out from that exam cool and confident and face the following papers feeling confident and capable. The result of yesterday's fiasco was that the confidence of very many students was undermined. They and their teachers were very unnerved and their parents were extremely concerned because they felt their children's future was seriously jeopardised.
There is no need for me to underline to the Minister the seriousness of the overall situation. If a number of students did the two parts of that question it meant they had less time for the other questions they tackled on that paper. That, in turn, meant that those other questions were not answered as well as they would have been if they had not done the alternative part of that question. The overall result is that the performance of every student in regard to that paper will be somewhat different from what it would have been if the paper had been properly printed.
I am very anxious to hear what the Minister proposes to do. She is presented with a very difficult task and no matter what she decides the overall result will be distorted. Perhaps she should consider giving some extra marks to the students who attempted that question. Perhaps she should decide that that question should not be marked but that the marks should be divided between the other questions which were answered. A number of options and permutations can be considered but I am afraid that no matter what is considered the psychological effect on a student will have seriously damaged his overall performance for the entire exam. That is something the Department cannot quantify. It is extremely serious.
As Deputy Kavanagh asked, at whom does the finger point? Where in the Department of Education was this serious mistake made? It is the Minister's duty to find out exactly where it occurred. I hope the Minister is arranging to have all further examination papers examined well in advance. If there was to be a repeat of this kind of mistake in any of the other exam papers the Minister would have to seriously consider resetting the English paper and also other papers. I hope that situation does not arise but the seriousness of this matter and its effect on the students cannot be overstated.
I am extremely concerned about the manner in which this could affect the future of those students. How the Minister can do something to rectify the matter is beyond me. Perhaps she has some very inspiring answers for us this evening. Normally she is very adept at answering questions in the House, as we have already seen this afternoon. This is a particularly serious issue and I ask her to try to do everything she can to be as helpful, as compassionate and as understanding as possible and to give confidence to the students who are sitting the exams so that they will be able to continue the remainder of the examinations reassured that there will not be another mistake.
I want to thank Deputy Kavanagh and Deputy Taylor-Quinn for the very sensitive and disciplined way they have dealt with this matter, but I would not expect otherwise from them. This has given me the opportunity to make a definitive statement on this issue.
The error occurred in the fiction section of paper II of the leaving certificate high level examination in English. The error was that the word "or" was omitted between the alternatives (i) and (ii) which are offered in each of three questions A, B and C in this section. As a result of this error candidates might have thought that they were required to answer both alternatives (i) and (ii) instead of one of them.
In spite of what has been said, it is unlikely — and I am convinced — that many candidates would have been confused or misled by the error, although I accept there would have been a degree of confusion. In the preparation for the examination teachers during their classroom work have gone over with the student the format of an examination paper at all levels — intermediate and leaving certificates, and particularly with the higher papers because of the importance of this discipline — the method of answering and the choices of question offered. They would have been instructed in the use of those choices and they would have used them as part of their school tests — the mock intermediate certificate and the mock leaving certificate are based on the papers which will be set in the intermediate and leaving certificate examinations. They would have had no reason to expect that a change had been made but the teachers would have known if any such change had been contemplated because it would have been announced by the Department to the schools and a sample paper to illustrate the change would have been issued. Therefore, because of their conditioning regarding the format of the paper, the majority of candidates would either have been unaware of the error on the paper or would have taken it for granted that the word "or" was in fact an error. They would have been confirmed in this view by the fact that the general instructions at the beginning of the paper would have drawn attention to the existence of alternatives in the three questions, A, B, and C.
All this is borne out by the results of preliminary inquiries made from schools and teachers of English throughout the country. They have genuinely expressed the view that very few candidates would have thought that the two parts, (i) and (ii), in any of the three fiction questions were other than alternatives. The teachers felt that most candidates would either not notice that the word "or" had been omitted or would assume that it had been omitted in error. They also thought that most candidates did not advert to the error until the examination was over and that their performance in the examination hall would have been unaffected by the error.
That is why I regret so much what has blown up about this incident. I regret that it happened. As Minister for the Department, I must stand over the authority of the Department and the authenticity and validity of the examinations must always be beyond question. This inspires the confidence of the parents, pupils and the public who place such emphasis on the results of the examinations.
I come now to the point raised by the Deputies. I want to assure Deputy Kavanagh that the spokesman for the Department did not say "We will do our utmost" which the Deputy obviously quoted from a newspaper——
The Irish Times.
I cannot comment on how the newspapers interpreted his comment but his comment was that "no candidate will suffer as a result of this confusion". I ask the Deputies to accept that.
I can assure the Deputy that no candidate has any cause to worry about this incident, I repeat that. I want to assure the Deputies, the House and the country at large — students, parents and the public — that appropriate adjustments will be made to the marking scheme to guarantee equity to all candidates who sat for this paper. Certain marking techniques will be employed to ensure that no candidate will suffer because he or she mistakenly thought that both alternatives had to be answered in relation to any of the fiction questions attempted. Similar marking techniques have been successfully employed to cope with the effects of errors that have occurred on other examination papers in previous years. However, I am not in a position to disclose what techniques will be employed because I do not wish to preempt the decisions which will be taken at the examiners' conferences shortly, the proceedings of which are absolutely confidential.
I am also aware that some individuals or groups are urging that candidates be given a second opportunity to sit the leaving certificate higher level English paper. I was glad to note Deputy Kavanagh's firm assertion that this should not be done. I think it would be counterproductive and would impose a quite unnecessary and intolerable burden on the candidates since it will be quite feasible to make appropriate adjustments to the marking scheme to deal with the problem.
Again I regret very much that this happened. In the past number of years there were various incidents of one kind or another but my first duty this evening is to express regret. My second duty is to assure the public, parents and young people in particular that the appropriate correcting measures will be taken to deal with any anomalies, that the supervisory examiners, and the examiners themselves, are skilled in this work, and that appropriate steps will be taken to enable them to pay particular attention to the various permutations which can occur in dealing with this error. My third duty is to repeat that I am making this definitive statement as Minister for Education. I take my duties so far as examinations are concerned very seriously and I intend to see that the steps I have outlined here tonight will be fully and comprehensively carried out so that no young person who sat the leaving certificate English honours paper need have any fear but that he or she will be judged accurately.
May I have a further assurance that the remaining papers will not have errors in them?
Yes, indeed.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 12 June 1987.