Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997

Vol. 480 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Rechecking of Leaving Certificate Papers.

Mr. R. Bruton

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I look forward to working in the education area where Ireland Inc., to use a commercial term, has to make a large investment and ensure we get value for money. This applies to the most needy in our community as well as to the most prosperous. It is of immense importance and I am pleased to have the opportunity to work in this area.

I raise the issue of the leaving certificate honours English examination because as the Minister will know there is widespread concern about the way those examination papers were corrected. I will not go so far as to say we are in an era of "rubber band and sticking plaster" to quote the Minister who has left the House, but there is a widespread feeling among parents and teachers who are directly involved that the attitude of the Department of Education is that God is in the heaven and all is right with the world, that our system is beyond reproach, we have done it this way for years and who are you to question the system in place. The reality is this was not a normal year as far as the results are concerned. No one can disregard the fact that all schools around the country reported that 25 per cent of their students were awarded grades substantially at variance with their previous performance and ability. Equally, it is extraordinary that more than 2,500 students have sought a recheck of their examinations. More than one in ten of those who sat the exam is unhappy with the way it was corrected and is seeking a recheck.

The Minister, no doubt at the prompting of his Department, consistently refused to accede to the core demands of teachers, students and parents. They were for new examiners to conduct the recheck and for the removal of all marks made on the papers by the first examiner. People felt that was the minimum necessary to ensure a fair recheck was carried out against the background of widespread concern. I am disappointed the Minister ploughed ahead with the existing system in the face of this substantial loss of confidence. There is a great onus on him to demonstrate that the recheck has been subjected to random quality assurance checks conducted in an independent way. An independent panel should be in put in place to do that random quality assurance check.

There is a generally held fear that examiners, in rechecking, may have followed a rule of thumb of allowing no more than 10 per cent of the rechecked papers to have altered results to give the appearance that this was a normal year. There is no conviction among the public that this was a normal year. If the view takes hold that some of the Department's examiners followed that rule of thumb to protect the system, that would seriously undermine confidence. The Minister will know probably today the results of the recheck and, if he does, he must immediately release information about the discrepancies that have been found. Students should be given separate results for each of their English papers so that they can see where they have fallen below performance. Is it, as suspected, where more qualitative evaluation was called for in assessing those papers? If it is, that gives cause for concern about the way those more qualitative evaluations are being conducted.

It is not enough for the Minister, as he has done, to promise a review in the future. What use will it be to students whose career chances have been scuppered to know that in six or nine months the Minister will come up with some good new ideas? There is a need to rebuild confidence in the future, but even on foot of a review in the future I am not happy with the Minister's initial response. He talked of issuing model questions and answers for the future, but the implication of that is he believes hundreds of teachers, students and parents got it wrong in that they were not able to master how questions are set and how answers should be given. That is a poor start for the Minister and his Department in approaching the subject of a review.

There is also genuine concern about whether there is real quality control in the existing system. It is widely believed that the work of individual examiners is not subjected to systematic random checking. I have heard stories that what happens is that the first 20 papers are corrected by an examiner and he then sends back three papers he selects for assessment by inspectors. That is the process of checking rather than a random checking of any one of the 270 papers that are given. There is a need to put in place a proper approach to random checking.

There is also public concern, reinforced by the teachers' unions, that individual examiners are not given enough time to evaluate a subject such as English. It has been suggested that a mere 30 minutes is given to assess 25 pages of creative writing. One cannot correct such a subject with an eye focused on the hour glass. Any serious review must be open, retain this year's papers and rework the correcting to identify how problems arose. It should have a steering committee on which parents and teachers, including those who have raised legitimate concerns, will be represented to ensure the review is carried out in an independent and realistic manner.

The Minister should include in a review the junior certificate correcting where there is some concern of a similar nature. If we are to have a review it should apply to both examinations. In respect of this year's examination papers the Minister must assure the public they have been independently and randomly rechecked so that parents can be happy that the results can be stood over.

Minister for Education (Mr. Martin)

I thank Deputy Bruton for raising this issue on the Adjournment and his kind remarks at the outset. I look forward to working with him for the furtherance of education because I share his view that it is central to the development of the nation.

English is the subject most often taken at higher level in the leaving certification examinations every year. This year, 32,402 candidates sat this exam. The initial marking was done by a group of 124 highly qualified examiners who have considerable experience as examiners of English and teachers of higher level English at leaving certificate. Following the issuing of results, 2,801 candidates appealed their grade. The appeals process was carried out by 26 highly experienced and extremely well-qualified appeal examiners whose expertise in this area cannot be surpassed. They have an average of more than 20 years experience of teaching higher level English between them. The outcome of the process resulted in 365 candidates being awarded an upgrade on their original results. This represents 13 per cent of appeals in the case of higher level English as opposed to 11 per cent last year and 12 per cent in 1995.

My sole concern is that we are fair to candidates and they receive the marks which their papers deserve. I am conscious that in previous years there has been a perception that information was released only gradually and under pressure. I am committed to the principle of absolute transparency with regard to all aspects of the examination process and, to this end, the details of this year's appeals process which I published earlier today at a full press conference, have involved an unprecedented level of transparency and openness.

Where, during the appeals process, the chief examiner has concerns about the standard of marking of any examiners, he or she can arrange for a full remarking of the relevant scripts. In the case of the higher level English this year, the unappealed work of one of the 124 assistant examiners was also fully remarked, in the light of the number and nature of successful appeals arising from that examiner's initial marking. This resulted in 14 upgrades for candidates who had not appealed their original markings. In other words we have put in place procedures to actively detect and report errors and to correct them. It is now possible because of technology available to recheck the work of an examiner as part of the appeals process.

I am satisfied the appeals process managed by my Department was conducted rigorously and with complete integrity. The philosophy was to do justice to the students: if something was wrong to find it out and to correct it. Appeal candidates can be fully confident their work was fully and fairly remarked and the entire process has ensured justice to all candidates whether or not they submitted appeals.

In terms of the marks on the papers from the original examiner there is an argument — and Price Waterhouse in conducting its independent review made the point — that what the appeals process is about is to determine whether the original marking scheme was applied correctly. One way of identifying whether it was, is to see how the original examiner marked the paper and whether he or she marked it in accordance with the original marking scheme. People might assume the appeal examiner might be predetermined to a certain disposition because of the marks on the script, but there is a strong counter argument, which I am convinced of, that the appeal examiner can see where mistakes were made by the original examiner and where marks were not given.

The Deputy has specifically referred to the concept of independent invigilation as part of the appeals process. He will agree that any examination appeals mechanism must determine absolutely whether errors occurred in the original marking and ensure that appeal candidates are not more favourably treated than any other candidates. The current appeals system achieves the necessary balance between these two factors. I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that a comprehensive and independent review and analysis of the leaving certificate appeals process has been prepared by Price Waterhouse and has been published. Its report stressed the absolute need to ensure that nothing is done within the appeals process which would give appeal candidates any advantage over the general body of candidates sitting the examination. Fresh examiners who were not at the original marking conference, who have no experience of or familiarity with the original marking scheme, would essentially be marking the appeal candidates under a new marking scheme, and that could disadvantage the 30,000 students who did not appeal. Bringing in fresh examiners would be a seismic shift in terms of the objectivity and integrity of the system, and the request to do that is not in any way a minimalist one that should be acceded to. It would very seriously undermine the integrity of the whole system.

This standardised marking scheme is used by highly experienced appeal examiners who have been involved in all stages of its development. They are ideally suited to judge whether, at first marking, the scheme was applied properly in the cases being appealed. They can also assess whether its application is consistent with the standards applied to other candidates sitting the same examination. Therefore, I am sure the Deputy will agree that, in fairness to all those sitting examinations, there is no realistic way of having appeal candidates' work marked by any person or body external to the examination process itself.

Mr. R. Bruton

This is a non sequitur. Outsiders can use the same Protocols.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister without interruption.

Mr. Martin

I am trying to be as helpful as I can to the Deputy and to be as open as I can about the nuts and bolts of this procedure. I am firmly committed to ensuring that candidates are given every assurance regarding the integrity of the examination system. For this reason, I appointed six independent examination commissioners in August. Their task will be to ensure that, in the case of those who seek their assistance, every procedure within the appeals process has been adhered to without fail. The transparency of this new layer of redress will be ensured by the publication of the examination commissioners' report within a month of the conclusion of their task.

It is my firm intention that our examination system should operate to the highest international standards. This will not be achieved by superficial embellishments. It requires serious and considered thought and analysis, a willingness to identify problems where they exist, and a determination to enhance quality.

With this in mind, I have today announced a series of initiatives to increase the openness of the system and address individual points put to me by teachers and parents. In addition I have announced the establishment of an expert group which will commission research based upon examples of best international practice, receive submissions and, ultimately, advise me on policy approaches in the examinations and all aspects of their operation. This group will be independent of the Department and, in its review and research role, will provide a forum for detailed consideration of all aspects of the operation of the examination system.

I stress again that the examiners are people of the highest integrity. They are teachers who dedicate their professional lives to the interests of their students and who are always conscious of the fundamental requirement that we must do justice to every student. They actively seek out errors, and when they find errors they report them. We should all be grateful to them for the service which they render.

With my officials, I met the group concerned for a full three hours in my Department, and we went through the nuts and bolts of the entire system with them. It was pointed out at that meeting that the monitoring that takes place in the original assessment is not at the behest of the individual examiner. The chief examiner has a system in place where there is random taking of scripts to assess whether the marking scheme is being applied. There is a very rigorous and detailed system. The marking scheme itself contains 48 pages. It is not a question of the Department saying that everything in the garden is rosy and that we stoutly defend the fortress. We are open to discussing ongoing improvements to the system. However, the bottom line is that there must be justice for all candidates who sit the examination, and that is a very complex issue and one that cannot be easily resolved by bringing in fresh external examiners.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 2 October 1997.