The core issue in relation to the honours English leaving certificate scripts from the students in St. Mary's school in Dundalk is whether they were graded in line with the criteria applied nationally. The Department maintains, following four successive rounds of scrutiny, that they were. The parents maintain otherwise.
There are two subsidiary issues. The problem of the delay is one issue with which I will deal this evening. There is a second issue — an allegation I received today from the parents' group in St. Mary's that an understanding reached between the Department and the school and the parents' representatives in relation to the manner in which the final recheck was to be carried out was not adhered to by the Department. Deputy Martin has tabled questions for answer tomorrow on this latter point. I will reply to his questions tomorrow but, because of the way all these matters have been linked together, I will also deal with this aspect this evening. I will deal with the two subsidiary issues first and then finish up with the core issue. I will do so in the context of a summary of the history of the case to date.
Following the issue of the leaving certificate results in August 1995 the school authorities appealed the results of 18 candidates in higher level English. Following the normal procedure, one upgrade was recommended and approved. The result of this upgrade was communicated to the school on 4 October 1995.
Following the issue of the results of the appeals for the leaving certificate examinations on 4 October 1995 a number of parents of candidates from St. Mary's College, Dundalk, began a correspondence with me and my Department seeking a further review of the leaving certificate English, higher level, results for the 18 candidates who had already appealed.
The chief examiner for English was instructed to conduct a further review of the grades awarded for these 18 candidates. In turn he instructed the chief advising examiner to review these 18 scripts and to verify whether they had been marked in accordance with the marking scheme. In due course the chief advising examiner, a teacher with over 20 years experience of examination work, reported that the results had been in accordance with the marking scheme and did not recommend any further upgrades. He passed the papers to the inspector who was chief examiner for English, who in turn passed them to a superior officer on 7 November 1995.
No further communication was made with the parents for three months. A preliminary and informal report has been received from the officer who received these papers. I am concerned that the delay was so prolonged. I have a responsibility before passing final comment on the delay to take full account of all the circumstances — including the systems involved — and giving persons involved the opportunity to explain fully the circumstances as they see them. I have asked for a further and formal report on the circumstances surrounding the delay. Pending receipt and consideration of this report, I will not comment further on the matter.
A further letter was received on 8 February 1996 from the representative of the parents. Immediately the file was referred to the deputy chief inspector. On Friday, 9 February, the deputy chief inspector spoke by telephone to the principal teacher of St. Mary's School, in Dundalk, and informed him of the decision that no further upgrades were warranted. He indicated that an inspector would visit the school in the near future.
Following consultation with the chief inspector, the deputy chief inspector spoke by telephone on Monday, 12 February, with a representative of the parents and informed her that the results were unchanged and that a letter would issue. I issued a letter on Thursday 15 February, informing the parents that no further upgrades were warranted, indicating that I was aware that the deputy chief inspector was in contact with them.
A further letter was received from the parents on 21 February 1995. The chief inspector and the inspector who was chief examiner for English visited the school. Following a meeting between the chief examiner for English and the principal and the teachers of English in the school, the chief inspector joined them for a discussion with three representatives of the parents. At that meeting the parents made clear their disappointment at the result and referred to the fact that the majority of pupils had received grades C or D in English whereas some of them had received much higher grades in other subjects.
The parents suggested that a teacher in the school, who had acted as an assistant examiner at this level, should remark some scripts from which the marks originally assigned had been deleted. This could not be accepted by the inspectors as it would contravene the regulations whereby teachers are precluded from acting as examiners of their own pupils.
The inspectors did undertake to have a recheck of a number of the 1995 scripts from the school which were to include some scripts to be nominated for comparison purposes, from the 18 results which had been appealed. It was proposed at the meeting that the English teachers in the school would nominate a number of scripts which would be subject to a comparison. The concept behind this approach was that the scripts of a weaker candidate would be paired with a more gifted candidate where each had scored the same grade. The inspectors also undertook that the chief examiner for English would return within one week to inform the school of the results of the recheck. He would bring with him copies of the marked scripts to show to the school authorities.
On 23 February 1996 the principal teacher telephoned the Department and asked particularly that the scripts of six nominated candidates within the school be looked at especially. On 24 February the chief inspector instructed that the chief examiner for English and the chief advising examiner — for English — would jointly look first at the six nominated scripts and then at the further 12 scripts that had been appealed originally. On Wednesday the review of the scripts was completed and no upgrade was recommended. All the nominated scripts were found by these examiners to have been graded correctly.
On Thursday, 29 February 1996, the chief examiner for English, accompanied by the chief advising examiner visited the school again and discussed the findings of the review with the chairman of the board of management, the principal and one of the teachers of English in the school. The chief examiner for English had with him copies of the six nominated scripts. When he had almost finished discussing the first of these scripts with the representatives of the school, the principal said there was no point in proceeding any further because of the divergence in opinions between the chief examiner and the teacher. The principal undertook to inform the parents that there would be no further upgrades.
Parents' representatives alleged to me subsequently that an agreement relating to the scrutiny of paired scripts did not take place. That is not true. The paired scripts were scrutinised but a discussion did not take place with all three teachers on the full six scripts. The relevant factors were the decision by the principal to bring the discussion to a close and the fact that all teachers were not present at the meeting between the chief examiner for English and the chief advising examiner with the chairman of the board of management, the principal and one of the three teachers.
