Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 22 Oct 2002

Vol. 555 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - State Examinations.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

I raise this matter because of major concern about the marking system for classical studies in schools in the Cork area, with particular reference to Hewitt College. I wish to outline some relevant statistics. In 2001, 65% of students who took classical studies obtained either an A or B grade and no student failed. In 2002, 3% of the students in that college obtained a B grade only, no student obtained an A grade and the most disturbing feature was that 50% of the students failed.

I made it my business to look at the national statistics for previous years. In 2000, there were 727 candidates of whom 8.7% received an A grade, 25% received a B, 33% a C and 23.4% a D, with 9.9% failing. By comparison, there were 920 candidates in 2002, of whom 1.6% received an A, 20.5% received a B, 29.2% received a C, 24.9% received a D and 18.1% failed. I emphasise that the teachers involved were highly experi enced and highly regarded within the schools. In the case of Hewitt College, the teacher was an examiner in 1996, 1997 and 1998. He was aware of the course content and the required standard of answering. This year, having reviewed the papers of the students concerned, there was an expectation that a reassessment would result in a major overall change in the marking system. It has been a traumatic experience for students, parents, teachers and schools in Cork.

The whole situation is ridiculous, as illustrated by the following example of one outstanding student. He got 550 points and qualified for medicine but failed in classical studies. From talking to that student, the parents and teachers, the consensus is that under no circumstances would a student who achieved that mark possibly fail classical studies. I have spoken to educational psychologists who have examined the comparative percentages for recent years and they have said the disparity in the figures for this year is absolutely impossible to explain. It is not logical, practical or justifiable and raises serious questions about the examination and the marking system for classical studies papers.

In raising this matter, I am concerned for the students and for equity, fairness, equality, transparency and justice. Students of this year's classical studies course have suffered to the extent that they are dismayed and feel betrayed at being denied a coveted college place in a course of their choice. Many of those students who are repeating the course question the justification of having a further year of study thrust upon them. I ask the Minister of State to satisfy herself beyond all doubt that the system has worked properly in this case. As she is aware, 20,000 papers are being reviewed in the UK. I urge her to arrange an independent review of the papers and the marking system for classical studies and to secure justice for the students concerned. I believe the system has wronged them. I would not raise the matter unless I was certain their claim is justified and that action is necessary to rectify the situation.

Miss de Valera

The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Dempsey, has asked me to reply on his behalf. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter and giving me the opportunity to outline the position of the Department of Education and Science in that regard. In dealing with the issue raised by the Deputy, I must say that our examination system is acknowledged as one of the most open, transparent and pro-candidate national examination systems in the world. A cornerstone of this openness and transparency is precisely those mechanisms that are in place to take on board genuine concerns that interested parties, including schools and students, might have in relation to examinations.

At the marking stage, over and above any individual observations submitted as a matter of course, subject associations and the teacher unions regularly each year provide observations on question paper content to the Department in advance of each marking conference. All observations received in relation to a subject are made available to the chief examiner for consideration in the context of preparing the marking scheme for that subject. The marking scheme is developed at the marking conference by the chief examiner and the team of examiners who are drawn from teachers of the subject. In the case of classical studies, as in all subjects, experienced teachers acting as examiners are able to input their own considered views into the formulation of the marking scheme.

As it has been the practice for a number of years to publish the detailed marking schemes used in the marking process, all interested parties are able to satisfy themselves as to the marking process that applied in the case of classical studies this year. Furthermore, each examination candidate has the option of viewing his or her marked script, has access to the marking scheme and can see at first hand precisely how the finalised marking scheme applied in their own case. All students also have the option of having their results reviewed. In the processing of reviews, the work of each candidate is fully remarked question by question. A fundamental feature of the review process is that the remarking is performed by a different examiner from the one who originally marked the work.

As is the norm, the appeals process was again used this year as a further quality assurance check on the original marking of classical studies. The chief examiner concerned, having overseen, monitored and reviewed the outcome of the appeal process, advised that no further intervention was called for. The chief examiner is also satisfied there is no disparity in the marking system from last year to this year. I strongly believe it would be utterly inappropriate for me or any Minister to interfere in the work of the chief examiner and the team of examiners who are experienced practitioners following their long established practices.