Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Feb 2003

Vol. 1 No. 5

State Examinations Commission (Establishment) Order 2003: Presentation.

I welcome the Minister and his officials, Mr. Martin Hanevy, Mr. Eamon Stack and Mr. Aidan Farrell. The business of the meeting is to help in the consideration of the proposal that Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann approve the State Examinations Commission (Establishment) Order 2003.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I thank the Chairman and members for their welcome. The purpose of this meeting is to explain the proposal for a State Examinations Commission.

I am using the provisions of section 54 of the Education Act 1998 to establish the State Examinations Commission. In accordance with the provisions of the legislation, I have laid copies of the proposed order before both Houses of the Oireachtas. As soon as each House passes a resolution approving the proposed order, I can make the order which will formally establish the commission.

The establishment of a State Examinations Commission will be a historic and significant event, not just in relation to how the State examinations are conducted, but also for the functioning of the Department of Education and Science. I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out for Oireachtas colleagues in this committee why we are doing this and what it will mean for the examinations and in a wider context for the education system.

The Government decision to establish a State Examinations Commission was taken by the previous Government in June 2001. I acknowledge the widespread support given at the time by all parties in the Oireachtas and by other stakeholders in the concept. The concept of moving responsibility for the operation of the examinations from the Department to another agency was under active consideration by the then Government in the mid-1980s. It lay dormant until the report by Seán Cromien on his review of the operations, systems and staffing needs of the Department of Education and Science, which gave new impetus to the concept and has led to this specific proposal that is before us today.

Since the Government decision in June 2001, my Department has been engaged in making the practical and detailed arrangements needed to devolve the task of operating examinations to a separate body. Ensuring continuity of a quality service has been an essential element of the planning exercise and I will return to that dimension later. Just after Christmas, I was pleased to announce that I would be bringing the draft order to the Houses shortly and that the Government had decided on the names of the commissioners designate.

The commission will consist of five members appointed by the Government on my nomination. Mr. Jimmy Farrelly, Ms Mary Bridget O'Hara, Mr. Martin Newell, Mr. Barry O'Brien and Ms Dympna Glendenning have all indicated that they are willing to accept appointment to the first commission. I am grateful to them for the practical support they are offering at the beginning of the process. The combination of their experience and their commitment to education means that the State Examinations Commission will start its life with a very strong board of commissioners.

The obvious first question to pose is: "Why have a separate State Examinations Commission?" The answer has two parts. One part lies in the perspective taken by Mr. Cromien in relation to the appropriateness of having such a large-scale operation located within the Department and its capacity to prejudice the Department's ability to become more focused on policy and planning work. There is a second, and to my mind, more significant driver of this change and that is to have in place the model of delivery that puts the operations of the examinations themselves on the soundest footing in the future.

The scale of the examinations operation is significant. The key point is that at the heart of the statistics are the future prospects of our young people. The leaving certificate examination, in particular, has become a key life event. No family in the country is unaware of its significance. Examination results have a high currency value as they are used to determine third level place allocation and employment prospects. As a consequence, the State examinations have effectively become a national institution. They are not owned by my Department or by any one group. The stakeholders are a broad coalition with students, parents and families at the centre, joined by teachers, school communities and all agencies, education institutions and employers that use the results.

Over the years it has been generally accepted that the integrity of the examinations, not only has been maintained but also has been seen to be maintained. Ensuring that public confidence in the fairness, quality and transparency of the system is maintained into the future is therefore of prime importance. This brings me to the first major principle that underpins the proposed establishment of the State Examinations Commission.

The Government is clear that the most appropriate type of body to be charged with the task of securing the integrity of the examination system and public confidence in it into the future is one headed by a board of commissioners appointed by the Government. This places the conduct of the state examinations function on the same plane as recruitment to the public service, the collection of taxes or the valuation of State property.

The second principle that I believe is important to put on the record is the view of the Government that, like the bodies to which I have referred, the commission should be a Civil Service body. The operation of the examination system is a fundamental public service and must remain a public service activity. A model of delivery based on privatisation would be totally inappropriate. This has happened in other jurisdictions, but I think it is inappropriate and it is not what we are about. I am using this opportunity to fully clarify the position and to ensure there is absolute clarity among the public about what we are doing.

Apart from public confidence in the integrity of the system, there is a high degree of consensus that the Department has operated the State examinations with a considerable degree of success over the years. Given the scale of the operation and the large team of people involved in it, including 4,500 examination superintendents and some 6,500 examiners, it is inevitable that problems can arise from time to time. These have been few and far between. The Department has worked hard in recent years to improve the systems and processes involved in the conduct of the examinations.

Since 1996, there have been some significant changes. Along with their results, candidates now receive a separate report that alerts them if any examination result has been formed without some essential part, such as an oral or practical component, being present. Through a sophisticated track and trace system that uses barcodes, examination material is tracked from schools and examiners to the Department and vice versa so that any irregularities or gaps can be readily detected. I invite the members of the committee to visit the operation and see for themselves how well it runs.

Empowering candidates through better information has been a key part of the quality agenda pursued by the Department. Publication of marking schemes and chief examiners' reports are a feature of the system but the sea-change occurred in 1998 through the mould-breaking decision to allow candidates view their marked scripts in the context of the appeals process. That move has placed the Irish examinations system to the forefront of international practice in rightly placing the individual candidate at the heart of the service.

A further key element in the suite of improvements made in recent years was the introduction of the appeals commissioners to whom an individual candidate has access after the completion of the appeals process. Appeals commissioners act like ombudsmen to ensure that candidates appealing their results are afforded due process.

Supporting these measures has been a consistent and incremental improvement in quality assurance measures in relation to the marking process. This has involved improvements concerning the induction and training of examiners and the supervision of the marking process by advising and monitoring examiners. The appeals process has been used as a further quality assurance check on the work of examiners generally and has led to instances where re-marking of the entire work of an examiner has been carried out.

The examination system the Department will hand over to the commission is robust and grounded on ensuring a quality service in a transparent manner. In the context of the transfer of responsibility to the new commission, it is vital that there is continuity in that agenda of quality assurance and transparency.

I now want to explain how, in the detailed planning for the transfer that has taken place since the Government decision, we have sought to ensure the continued successful operation of examinations. A chief executive officer will have overall executive responsibility for the work of the commission, assisted by a director of operations and a head of examinations and assessment. In relation to the administrative functions of the commission all the experienced staff serving in the Department's examinations branch will be assigned to the new commission on vesting day. They will be augmented by additional staff to deal with the corporate service activities, such as human resources and IT, that the Department previously provided but which the commission will now provide for itself on a dedicated basis.

To ensure a smooth hand-over in the critical areas of question paper and test instrument preparation leading on to the marking and results processes, the new commission will have a dedicated assessment division to which serving members of the Department's inspectorate, currently involved in the examination processes, will be seconded. In the new commission the officials concerned will work exclusively for the commission and will be charged with managing the delivery of its assessment functions to the highest standards. I acknowledge the constructive and positive approach taken by the relevant public service unions and staff interests in working with my Department to successfully conclude these crucial detailed arrangements.

To support the change agenda into the future the commission will have resources in its assessment division to pursue research into assessment methods and approaches and through its own dedicated IT function will be able to continue to harness IT to further improve customer service by building on such initiatives as web access to exam results.

To a large extent the scale of the examinations operation is the result of the work of the Department, in consultation with the NCCA and the partners in education, in developing post-primary curricula. There are a number of options available to young people in post-primary schools today. This increases the chance that each young person will pursue a course of education that suits his or her interests, aspirations and ability. A wide variety of subjects is available. Most of these subjects can be studied at two levels and some are available at three levels - foundation, ordinary and higher.

Diversity extends beyond individual subjects and several different programmes of education are available to our post-primary students. The present junior cycle curriculum, introduced in 1989, offers access to a single unified programme for students. Following the exams in 1992, the first junior certificates were awarded, replacing the intermediate certificate and day vocational or group certificate. Since then the junior certificate schools programme has become available to students who may have difficulty with the junior certificate in its original format.

Senior cycle pupils can opt to pursue a traditional academic leaving certificate programme. They also have the option of the leaving certificate vocational programme. While this has a strong academic component and allows participants to proceed directly to universities or institutes of technology, the link modules - enterprise education, preparation for work and work experience - introduce them to the world beyond school and academia.

The leaving certificate applied caters for students who are not well served by an academic approach to education. Successful participants in this programme are eligible to participate in many post-leaving certificate courses leading to further education and training awards. Those participants who enter the workplace directly on leaving school enter as young people whose education has prepared them for this step. All this, while contributing to the flexibility and inclusiveness of our education system, has increased the complexity of operating the exams.

When the commission is established, responsibility for the operation of the examinations will devolve to it. Responsibility for overall assessment policy will continue to reside with my Department, informed by the advice and recommendations of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Such major policy issues as the future role and nature of the junior certificate examination and how the senior cycle should evolve will be, as heretofore, a matter for the Minister. To support policy development the recent changes in MAC and principal officer assignments in the Department include the creation of a new curriculum, assessment and qualifications policy section.

While discussion, analysis and debate continues on some of the more medium-term and major policy issues in relation to assessment, there are a number of issues concerning the examination system and how it impacts on young people that I will be asking the NCCA and the State Examinations Commission to examine in the immediate future.

Without prejudice to the debate on such issues as the balance of external and internal school based assessment, positive changes can be considered that can reduce the stress experienced by young people each year in the month of June in particular. This can be done by spreading out the existing assessment arrangements over the full school year. I will be requesting both the NCCA and the commission to look at how we might move to a situation where, for example, a candidate would submit essay work in English for examination much earlier in the examination year and thereby reduce the amount to be done in June. At junior certificate within the existing framework there are particular questions that need to be addressed about the burden on candidates that arises from the duration of some of the examinations and the need for examinations in more than one written paper in any one subject.

I turn now to the second dimension to the rationale for transferring the operation of the examinations from my Department to the new commission. I have referred to the report by Seán Cromien on his review of the operations, systems and staffing needs of the Department of Education and Science. Mr Cromien painted a picture of a Department that was drowning in detailed day-to-day work, severely limiting its capacity to take a long-term, strategic approach to its business. He cited a piece from an earlier report on the Department, undertaken by Deloitte & Touche, which I think is worth repeating. The report states:

In general the Department is involved in many details of the operation of the education system, which by their sheer number tend to absorb much of the Department's time and effort in reactive activity. The current workload is therefore skewed towards those operational activities, which, although critical to the ultimate delivery of education, defer attention from longer-term and strategic activity in the sector.

When Mr. Cromien undertook his review there was growing disquiet at all levels within the Department at the quality of the customer service it could deliver. This was despite the strong commitment by the majority of the staff to their customers.

Equally, there was, and is, a sense of frustration among customers of the Department, who frequently experience difficulty in their transactions with the Department. Considering that the principals of more than 4,000 schools are typical customers of my Department, it is easy to imagine the difficulties they experience when faced with delays in dealing with correspondence and other limitations on service due to the sheer volume of communication coming into my Department. Many of those customers will acknowledge that most individuals within the Department are making every effort to provide them with a good service. However, there is a limit to what can be achieved when some of the systems within which the Department operates predate the foundation of the State.

The situation that has arisen within my Department also causes me concern for another reason. Unless we address the underlying structural problems, the Department will increasingly lose capacity to engage in proactive forward planning and formulation of educational policy. The outline I have given of the development of second level programmes since 1989 illustrates the value of my Department as a co-ordinating centre for education. It would be disastrous for the future of Irish education to be left without such acentre.

Mr. Cromien recommended steps affecting most aspects of the business of my Department to counter the difficulties faced by the Department and its customers. At the core of his recommendations are the pressing needs to move away from detailed involvement in operational matters to allow a focus on policy development, forward planning and evaluation. This mirrors the broad theme of the earlier report by Deloitte & Touche and a general feeling within the Department itself. Acting on Mr. Cromien's recommendations is the only realistic way of enabling my Department to fulfil its role in driving the future of Irish education.

Following receipt of the report, a task force within my Department prepared a blueprint for the implementation of its recommendations. The Government approved the implementation of four measures in June 2001: the establishment of a State Examinations Commission; the establishment of the National Council for Special Education, as a body independent of the Department, to provide research, expert advice and undertake certain operation functions for students with disabilities; the establishment of a framework of regional offices; and the bringing forward of legislation to extend the remit of the Higher Education Authority.

I hope, with the support of the committee, that we can take the final steps towards the establishment of the State Examinations Commission. This will be the first of the four measures to be fully implemented. Throughout the course of this year, the other elements of the Government decision will be progressed. I will be moving to establish the National Council for Special Education on a statutory basis. This year will see the roll-out of our regional office network and I am also committed to bringing forward the necessary legislative measures to support the devolution of responsibility for the institute of technology sector to the HEA.

Work is also continuing on a series of steps to bring clarity and certainty to other aspects of the Department's business. An independent appeals mechanism dealing with staffing allocation at primary level has been put in place and at second level it is intended to make appeals to an independent body possible from the 2003-04 school year. An independent appeals system has also been established with regard to the application of the terms of the school transport scheme.

We are shaping a Department that will be capable of anticipating and meeting the needs of the educational sector of 21st century Ireland. We are doing this both by an internal restructuring of the Department and its processes and by external restructuring through the establishment of independent bodies to provide support services. The State Examinations Commission will be based in the existing examinations branch premises in Athlone, which has been specifically designed for the operation of the exams. Last year, I attended a function to mark the 25th anniversary of the relocation of the examinations branch to Athlone. The move of the branch from Dublin to Athlone was one of the very first Civil Service decentralisations. It successfully demonstrated that it was possible to carry out functions with a national application from outside Dublin.

The State Examinations Commission represents the evolution of examinations branch into the type of organisation that we will need as we move further into the 21st century. I am confident that this pioneering move of one of the largest operations of my Department into the remit of a separate body will be every bit as successful as the move to Athlone in 1977.

I apologise to the Chairman for going over my allotted time. I will have to make sure my officials get used to the speed at which I speak.

The Minister provided a great deal of information and I thank him for doing so. I will proceed by calling on the Fine Gael spokesperson, the Labour Party spokesperson and the Technical Group spokesperson to speak for about ten minutes each. The nature of the business dictates that we would have mostly questions, although there may also be some comment on the proposal. In so far as is possible, I ask Members to avoid the area that is more the business of the curriculum assessment and qualification policy section and concentrate on the matters that the Minister indicated will be referred to the State Examinations Commission. I realise that is difficult to divide the topics, but I ask members to do so if possible.

I welcome the Minister and his officials and congratulate him on this initiative. He has the full support of the committee on this because it is the correct way to go.

The establishment of regional offices and decentralisation runs parallel to the suggestions put forward some years ago by my party with regard to local education boards and the moving of much of the day-to-day operational work out of the Department. I understand the rationale behind this and agree with the Minister that the examination system has worked extremely well. We should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the officials of the Department who have operated this system with the greatest efficiency and integrity possible. As with any human endeavour, there have been occasional glitches. Whenever there has been a problem, however, the Department and its officials have moved quickly to resolve it in the best possible way.

We are now moving into a different area and, when something that has worked well for so long is altered, we will have to be careful that the change is handled properly. One of the issues that comes to mind is the need for accountability. Until now, if there has been a problem in the administration of the examination system - fortunately that has been rare - Deputies could table parliamentary questions on the issue.

The terms of reference state that the commissioner shall submit to the Minister at such time as the Minister may direct such information regarding performance of its functions as the Minister may, from time to time, acquire. Does that mean that this commission will be required to forward information by way of parliamentary question? Will that accountability to the Dáil remain or will the establishment of the commission mean that the accountability that exists at present through parliamentary questions will disappear, as has happened in many other areas where such semi-State and State agencies have been established? Ministers come to the House to say they regret that they are no longer responsible to the Dáil on an issue, which is the responsibility of an agency, in this case the commission.

The accountability mechanism will now lie in bringing the commission in front of this committee, which will only be possible on an irregular basis. That is a crucial question for all of the bodies which are being established, and rightly so, by the Government. However, the Minister should bring the issue of accountability to the attention of his Cabinet colleagues because many citizens are becoming disconnected from politics and frustrated.

I understand that, until now, personnel in the Department were moved from area to area as the need arose or when the workload increased. Will this mean that a set number of people will be employed by the commission? How many people will be required and will extra resources be needed? I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister's decision not to privatise. That is the right way to go and it is important this remains within the Civil Service.

I have raised in the House on several occasions, by way of parliamentary question, the problem of junior certificate fees. People have decided not to pay fees for various reasons and perhaps do not see the junior certificate as being useful. About 900 people did not pay the fee in 2000 and did not get their certificates. Could the Minister declare an amnesty for these children, issue the certificates and let the commission deal with this from now on? There may also have been others in the intervening years and it is an area that needs to be considered. There is a problem in the system where people sit the junior certificate exams, do not pay fees - perhaps because they cannot afford to - and the certificates are left sitting on the shelf.

The Minister mentioned the role of the commission in carrying out research and he implied that this would happen at a later stage. Will it happen initially and what will that role be?

A problem has arisen over the years with regard to the transfer of scripts and work from the examination centres to the Department marking centre. Scripts have been lost, mixed up, damaged, fallen off trains and God knows what else. Will this body have any role in the transfer of the scripts as that is not mentioned in its functions? Who is responsible for the transfer of scripts and their safekeeping? I do not see how it could be a teacher or a school. Is the Department responsible? It is not mentioned and I want to know if the commission has a role.

The Minister mentioned assessments and arrangements and I agree with him in that regard. I am taken with the notion of students writing their essay for the leaving certificate English examination earlier in the year. That is an innovative idea and could be explored later by the committee to see how it might be done, perhaps in the context of the other commission. However, we must ensure that continuous assessment does not become continuous harassment. There is pressure on students in June, but I would hate to see that pressure on them for two full years. I encourage caution on this matter.

Does the board have a role in relation to the use of information technology during examinations? Have any advances been made? As there have been problems with the quality of aural tapes in junior and leaving certificate examinations, I would like the Minister to bring the issue to the attention of the new commission. Does he have anyone in mind to fill the role of chief executive?

I join Deputy Stanton in welcoming the Minister for Education and Science and his officials to the meeting. I congratulate those who have operated the examinations system during the years. As Deputy Stanton said, people have been satisfied with and have trusted, by and large, the efficient way in which it has operated. It is important that young people have confidence in the system and that the transition to the new commission is carried out as smoothly as possible. We must ensure those involved in examinations, such as school authorities, supervisors and correctors, are fully informed about the transfer arrangements. I agree with the Minister's decision not to privatise the examinations office and assume that those involved under the new arrangements will be those who have been doing the job in the Department up to now.

Deputy Stanton referred to the public accountability of the Minister in terms of the operation of the system. When Deputies ask questions about certain issues, they are told that the Minister is not responsible for the matter as it falls under the remit of an independent authority. A question about recycling facilities, asked by my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, was recently ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle who said the matter was not the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government who said he was quite happy to answer the question and did so when it was retabled. We should ensure the examinations system is accountable and that queries made by the public, through public representatives, can be answered. I note the Minister's statement that the commission will have responsibility for the operation of examinations but that responsibility for overall assessment policy will stay with the Department of Education and Science. We need an absolute assurance that questions raised with regard to the policy side of the operation of the system will be answered. I would prefer if the Minister was able to respond to any questions asked about examinations.

I have significant concerns about the proper resourcing and funding of the commission. The National Education Welfare Board has encountered difficulties in becoming established and getting education welfare officers into position to deal with the problem of young people dropping out of school. I understand that, since it started its operations in 2002, the board has received about one quarter of the money it was originally considered to need. I realise that there has been an industrial dispute but there are no education welfare officers in place to deal with the problems of children, many of whom are of primary school age, who drop out of school. I demand an absolute assurance that the commission will be adequately resourced to do the job it will be statutorily obliged to do. It will not be able to fulfil its role if it does not receive funds but it will be held responsible nonetheless. It is being placed in an invidious position, as was the National Education Welfare Board. I want the Minister to guarantee the joint committee that the new body will be fully resourced.

The Minister and Deputy Stanton referred to the pressure faced by students in June, a matter not directly related to the operations of the new commission. Some believe examinations should be spread throughout the school year. I would favour such a move. Some students do not perform to their ability as a consequence of the pressure of the examinations season, although others cope very well. The problem of pressure is particularly evident in the leaving certificate examination, the result of which affects young people's futures. I would favour a system of continuous assessment in as many subjects as possible. I appreciate that this would create all kinds of difficulties and demand a great deal of co-operation and increased resources. I know young people who fell apart when they could not cope with the pressure of the examinations in June when their futures were placed on the line. Many have not enjoyed the life they wished as a result.

One of the advantages of speaking last is that many questions have already been asked. I thought we were discussing the briefing document as well as the Minister's speech.

The actual draft document is before the joint committee.

I agree with the Minister that existing assessment arrangements should be spread over the full school year. I disagree with other speakers, however, as I genuinely believe the examinations system has failed many of those who have had to use it during the years. All members of the joint committee are familiar with cases of young people who have suffered as a result of examination pressure - this country's high suicide rate is a cause of concern. The pressure can be relieved by conducting examinations over the full year. Junior certificate results, in particular, should not be based on examinations held over a week or two. It is unfair that some children have to take their examinations in damp or cold schools - I do not know if there is an intellectual argument to be made in relation to this matter which needs to be examined, although I do not know if the commission can do so. Some pupils are disadvantaged because their schools do not have the same quality of facilities as others.

I am concerned about a couple of matters in the draft document. I thought the committee was going to discuss the nominations of commissioners but the Minister has already announced them. Jobs in the commission should be advertised, vacancies should be published and interviews should take place to ascertain the best candidates. I am not saying anything about those who have been appointed but we must ensure appointments are open. Past nominations in various areas have involved political cronyism and people looking after those from similar backgrounds. State boards have been packed with political appointees. If we are to move forward, we need to ensure all appointment processes are open. The Minister could do the State some service by setting a positive precedent. I do not mean to cast aspersions on those who have been nominated.

I am interested in the gender balance on the commission as appointed by the Minister. The Commission on the Status of Women recommended a 40% gender balance on the commission and it is clear the Minister has taken this on board. Hopefully, many of the other committees and State boards will do much the same. We need to firm up the draft order which the Minister could suggest should be stronger with regard to the gender balance.

Article 11, section 5 provides for one term of office for the chief executive officer. I suggest the Minister provides that no member of the commission sits for more than two consecutive terms to make it more open.

I was not here for some of the earlier contributions. I am extremely sceptical of the need for the commission in the first place. The Minister states in his speech that apart from public confidence in the integrity of the system there is a high degree of consensus that the Department has operated the State examinations with a considerable degree of success over the years. I agree with that assessment. The Cromien report quotes earlier reports in a way which calls to mind the manner in which the recent British dossier quoted a Californian postgraduate. I am not sure that building reports on reports is a good idea. The report says the Department was involved in detailed day-to-day work and that the workload affected its long-term capabilities. If that is the case, why not simply expand the Department of Education and Science and increase its resources? A sub-department could be created with responsibility for examinations. Would that not be a more cost-effective method of addressing the matter?

I am suspicious that the real reason the examinations commission is being set up separately is due to labour relations and cost issues, rather than because the Department could not perform the functions in question even if properly resourced. The Department will still have an overall policy input and the new commission will be based in Athlone. It does not make sense to have a new commission based in a Department building, when an expanded Department could do the job which the Minister has admitted it was performing very capably for many years. Is there a little bit of duplication here?

I cannot resist the opportunity to snipe at State policy. We beat our breasts a great deal about decentralisation and the examinations branch went to Athlone 25 years ago. Schools often get on to me about having to travel to the likes of Tullamore because the onus to travel is often on them rather than on officials of the Department. Decentralisation is about making something accessible from local areas. Moving Departments around the country does not constitute decentralization; it is the simple relocation of a centralised body to another part of the country to be able to say the jobs are going to a particular ministerial area. I do not direct that comment at the Minister present, but at Government policy.

Deputies and Senators are excluded from the commission, but local authority members are not. In an era when the dual-mandate is to be abolished and there are questions about cronyism, it might not be a bad idea to make an amendment to disbar councillors from membership of the commission. I welcome what Deputy Crowe said with regard to the gender balance. There seems to be as much there as there can be since you cannot have two and a half men and two and a half women. I have no problem with the make-up of the commissioners as appointed, but I object to the idea behind it. It should be fully within the remit of the Department. The Department should be able to carry out long-term planning because that is a resources issue and I cannot see how farming the work out will be advantageous. I note that the commission will not be privatised. Hopefully, the same standards of marking will continue to apply. In the UK Estelle Morris made the noble decision to resign because there was a mess with A levels correction. If the noose is loosened, even though the commission is in the departmental building, something could go wrong. Would it not be better to leave this matter within the Department in a subsection which is properly resourced?

I echo the remarks of Deputy Gogarty to the extent that students interests are paramount in examinations. Students are not complaining about the exams, but the system is being changed nevertheless. We have to be very careful. The motivation for the change comes from a need to streamline the Department, which is worthy, but from the example of what happened in the UK last summer, it is very clear that transition can be fraught. If anything goes wrong next summer people will say that they did not want a change in the State examination procedures and that the idea came from within the Department. If anything goes wrong there will be accountability problems.

I would like the Minister to explain the operation of the appeals system in terms of the board itself. If a student or school has a difficulty with the commission, how will they make an appeal and how will the board act as an ombudsman? I am concerned that there might be an increase in bureaucracy for schools since they will now have to deal with two bodies, the Department of Education and Science and the commission. Staff are very often put to the pin of their collars in terms of the work they do. I agree with other members about spreading the examination over the year, but with reservations. If an English essay were to be submitted, would it have to be done under examination conditions with invigilators and papers sent out by the commission? I am pleased to see the Minister is nodding.

I join with previous speakers in welcoming the Minister and his officials. I am concerned about the transition period. New bodies feel it necessary to show they are different and are about to change things. That could affect students undertaking exams. I welcome the commission, but I have some points to make about that. Unfortunately, our educational system is points driven in too many cases because of its assessment mechanisms. I have advocated change in the system for some time.

The commission will be responsible for making arrangements for the marking of work presented for examination. Does this refer to physical arrangements, or to the marking system? Will the commission be responsible for the points system or will it be a function of the Department? It is clear that will be a departmental function.

It will be a role of the CAO.

I hope whoever is responsible will examine the matter during the transition so that they can work in tandem with the commission. If we plan to bring forward the setting of new papers, the question will then arise as to who will set the questions. Is the commission responsible for the production of examination papers? Is its role confined to the printing and distribution of such papers? Who will set the questions? If we are to have a new body setting the questions, I am concerned that students do not fall foul of difficulties in the first few years of the transition period. If we have a change in emphasis in the way questions are presented or put, there must be ongoing liaison with schools to ensure there are no difficulties in the transition period.

The three main questions concern the transition period, the agency which will be given responsibility for setting the questions and the need to have constant liaison with the CAO vis-à-vis the points system. The points system is out of control. Many schools are abandoning the fundamental principles which should govern our education system if we are to produce people with a set of values and a broad education. The system should not be driven by points and children should not be dissuaded from doing certain subjects because of the timeframe required in order to do lesser subjects because it is easier to accumulate points. I hope the change in the emphasis of examinations will also take this on board and there will be liaison on the matter.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I endorse the comments of previous speakers with regard to the examination branch of the Department of Education and Science. It is owed a tremendous debt for the work it has done through the years and the number of students it has processed with few significant hitches. Any fears the public may have had with regard to the new development will have been put aside because, as the Minister stated, the staff currently operating the system in the Department have transferred to the new commission. It is important the confidence in and integrity of the current system are maintained under the new regime.

I refer the Minister to the question of continuous assessment. He stated that discussion, analysis and debate continues in the medium term with regard to assessment and quoted the example of a student being able to submit a time consuming essay at English leaving certificate honours level much earlier in the school term. Concern is not confined to English. Assessment already takes place in four or five subjects. The longest internal assessment ever carried out was in agricultural science. Others have been carried out in home economics, technical woodwork and engineering and all have been successful.

It is vital the Minister clarifies the question. The danger, about which hints have been made, is that certain people will grasp the issue of continuous assessment and exploit it by taking it out of context. I ask the Minister to urgently clarify the Department's intentions. I am aware the option of introducing continuous assessment was analysed in the past and rejected by previous Ministers in an unfortunate manner. It is important to ensure people can set aside concerns they may have about the integrity of the examination arising from internal assessment by a professional body.

Heretofore, final certification for State examinations was issued by the Department and the Minister. Will this remain the function of the Minister? The final assessment and accreditation for years of study should continue to be certified by the Department. I share the widespread belief that the current position adds greater substance to the process than would a new commission being given this role.

On the question of the appointment of supervisors and examiners, will such appointments continue to be advertised? Difficulties are creeping into the recruitment process. People who are effectively third level students have corrected or examined completed papers, although this has not been the case at leaving certificate standard. While I am not arguing that teachers alone can examine and supervise, nevertheless if we pursue the current approach, we will have further inconsistencies in the standards of final marking of examination papers. I have had the privilege of being a supervisor and examiner at all levels in the system. It is important we are seen to positively identify the practitioners as the best people to examine scripts and the practical side of examinations.

Over the years, Ministers have created monstrosities, such as the National Roads Authority and An Bord Pleanála. This has led to Members being unable to get replies to questions in the House. It is important the Minister makes clear that the commission is answerable to him and the Houses of the Oireachtas. Very few Members, regardless of party, are willing to allow a third body to be created - there are no doubt others - which is not held accountable. It is inevitable that difficulties will arise with the commission, however small, as history has shown this to be the case with internal examinations in the Department. We must have access to information, whether positive or negative.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I endorse the comments of previous speakers on the operation of the examination system, which has played such a vital role in the lives of our young people. I compliment the improvements brought about in the late 1990s in trying to secure and assure the integrity and transparency of the system. As the Minister and his officials will be aware, prior to that point, there were many hiccups in the system, including, as Deputy Stanton said, bundles of completed examination papers falling off the back of lorries on country lanes. While it rarely happened, it was not a completely unheard of occurrence. Both the introduction of the new tracking system, which is now fully operational, and the possibility of making the answer papers available to students upgrades the integrity and transparency of the system.

The Chairman has rightly said this is not the appropriate time for discussion of curriculum and assessment issues. Nevertheless, I have a point to make in response to what was said by Senator Minihan in regard to the points system. I too have ongoing reservations on the operation of the points system. While I am passionately in favour of academic and educational excellence, I am equally passionately opposed to academic and educational elitism. I make this remark in connection with an exchange which was had in the committee last week, but I will not refer to the group concerned. Up to recent times the marking of leaving certificate science subjects as well as music had all the hallmarks of elitism. This was manifested to the committee last week and I was not happy about it. It only confirmed my view that the Minister and his Department need to look very closely at the manner in which As are dished out in leaving certificate marking. One should not have to be a Beethoven to get an A grade in music nor should one have to be an Einstein to get an A grade in a science subject. I apologise for reiterating the same points I made last week, but in recent years there has been too much evidence of this happening and what I heard here last week, unfortunately, confirmed my suspicions. I hope the Minister will address this matter at a later stage.

We have problems in regard to the points system and I welcome the Minister's proposals to tackle them. I envisage an even greater role for continuous assessment than it is currently accorded. While there is an inherent risk in the process in regard to a lack of objectivity, there is a potential framework to minimise, if not eliminate, this risk. I am aware that the Minister is currently addressing the issue and I commend him for this. I hope the review which is underway will be expedited. I am satisfied that when that is concluded all the interested parties will have confidence in the system of continuous assessment.

I welcome the decision not to privatise the new examination commission. This will ensure that the integrity of the system is best secured within the Civil Service where it belongs. I hope the Minister will come to the Seanad to discuss the Cromien report and the Department's proposed response to it.

I thank the Minister for his presentation. The setting up of the board makes sense in the context of the background outlined by him. I echo the point made in regard to the importance of such a function being retained within the Civil Service. Proper resourcing is fundamental but the Minister did not address this issue. It has more to do with a transfer of resources.

There is much to recommend the current exam system. It is one of the great success stories of the State, as has been our education system in general. It has been a major contributory factor to the making of the Celtic tiger and is fundamental to maintaining our economic success. I accept the point regarding the need to measure different types of ability and address the difficulties of certain students in regard to the conventional exam system.

The points system is fair and far from elitist. Interviews for university and third level courses are more likely to lead to class bias and elitism. There is a view of third level that it is a once-off opportunity after the leaving certificate. We need to get the message across that people have a chance to access third level at a later stage. Other options are also available, such as part-time study or modular study, as well as other ways of gaining entry to third level apart from the leaving certificate results, such as transition courses and so on. The abolition of fees widened the access of all social groups to third level and I believe this will be one of the conclusions of the review group the Minister has initiated on the issue of fees. Free part-time fees is one area that should be investigated in order to widen access to third level.

It took me 20 minutes to address the committee at the start, but it may take me longer to answer all the questions raised.

I thank the members for their considered responses and the broader issues they raised. I also thank them on behalf of my departmental officials, particularly those who operated the examinations system up to now and who will now become State commissioners. The State examinations commission will continue to operate the exam system in the same way as it has been operated heretofore.

A number of questions were asked about the setting of examination papers, the marking of exams and so on. I envisage that the exam candidates will not notice any difference apart from the heading of the exam paper itself, which will have State examination commission rather than Department of Education and Science on it. All the successful elements that have been there up to now will be retained. I am delighted that members raised this issue and that students can be reassured on the point. It is largely an administrative exercise and will not affect the quality of the service that will be provided. The same senior examiners and inspectors will be doing the same job in the exam commission. The chief inspector who is sitting beside me can confirm what I have said. The civil servants involved have been rightly praised for the work they have done in regard to the exam system. While there have been glitches at various times they have always been willing to accept the blame and set about rectifying the problem immediately. That is the way we intend to continue to operate.

If members still have outstanding questions they should ask me and I will be delighted to answer them.

A question was asked regarding the appeals system. There is no change to it, and it has always been at arm's length from Ministers. Ministers have never interfered in it and will not do so at this stage. It is exactly as it is outlined to students.

Deputy Gogarty said the system is not geared to meet students' needs and alluded to the case for structural change. Apart from being accused of being an ideologue, which I take as a compliment, I am sometimes accused behind my back of being a technocrat because I try to find out what is not working in a Department and try to change it. I do so for a simple reason and am not interfering. There are very competent people in the Department who do their jobs, but I believe that the customer will not be served properly if the structures of a Department are not adequate. We have to put efficient systems in place. Cromien's core analysis was that we were, as a Department, involved too much in the day-to-day running of various projects and that we are up to our knees in a range of initiatives in which we should not be involved. That works to the detriment of our customers, in this case the students in the schools. We need to devote much more time to policy, devising strategy and making sure we are providing the necessary service. It is a matter of bearing in mind the end users, that is, students and the wider community.

Deputy Crowe raised a point about the TLAC appointment, which is a Civil Service appointment. Mr. McNamara is the chief executive officer who has considerable experience in the examination section of the Department. The appointment in question was a TLAC appointment and went through the relevant procedure pertaining thereto. I take the point the Deputy made in respect of many of these organisations and that a limited term as chief executive officer, perhaps seven or ten years, should be considered. It is a high-level job and renewal is probably needed.

Deputy Stanton raised a point regarding research. The immediate priorities are the rolling-out of the examinations and the provision of the papers. When the examinations have been completed and results are issued, research units will commence work. We are providing extra resources to allow for that. The research will involve comparisons with examination systems in other countries, national standards, etc. These matters will be part of the remit of the commission itself.

Responsibility for materials we are using rests with the commission. Obviously, we have major contracts with Iarnród Éireann and An Post, which have a responsibility while the examinations are in transit. There is a very extensive and impressive tracking system in place, which uses bar-codes, etc. I examined that system shortly after I was appointed and it would be worthwhile for the committee to do so to satisfy itself regarding its effectiveness. The people involved will have their contracts and will have a responsibility for carriage, but the examinations commission will have ultimate responsibility for the operational issues concerning the examinations, including the tracking system.

Deputy Stanton also raised the issue of the junior certificate fees. About 30% of all students have exemptions through the medical card coverage for their fees. There is a very high compliance rate among students. I am not inclined in any way to remove the only sanction we have in place, which prevents the release of certificates to those who do not pay their fees. It would be a retrograde step to lift it and unfair to those who have paid.

I agree with the members of the committee who said there is a need for accountability. A balance always has to be kept between accountability and interference. The commission will be independent and the Minister will continue to have responsibility for policy. I will be answerable to the Dáil in this respect. The commission will be accountable to this committee and can be summoned by it. The chairman will also be accountable, as will I, by a mechanism whereby I can request a report on particular operational matters. That report has to be given to me and I will lay it before the House, where I can be held to account.

Will it be an annual report?

Because the commission will be a Civil Service body, the Chairman can take it for granted that it will be an annual report. If we need to make it specific or if a problem arises——

There is provision for a special report in the event of a cock-up or disaster. I hope there will be none, but——

Yes. I hope we will not have to worry about that.

Will the commission finish up like An Bord Pleanála or the NRA?

A better analogy would be with the Revenue Commissioners, which is before the Committee of Public Accounts.

Does that mean there will be accountability to the Committee of Public Accounts as well?

It does. There is a provision regarding the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which obviously becomes part of the business of the Committee of Public Accounts whenever it is completed.

We had a Comptroller and Auditor General——

That relates only to the financial side, whereas we are more concerned with——

The committee is more concerned with the operational matters, but there are——

I am loath to interrupt the Minister, but I regard the transfer of powers to the commission as a major dilution of the role of Deputies. At present we can ask questions about statistics on examinations and the withholding of the certificates where the junior certificate is concerned, which should be researched. If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying Deputies will be excluded from asking questions about particular operational day-to-day matters. If we ask such questions, I predict the Ceann Comhairle will tell us the Minister is no longer responsible to the Dáil for such matters and that responsibility now lies with the commission. A further dilution of the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas is evident in this crucial area.

I am not asking the Minister to interfere in the role of the commission but, as Members, we should at least have access to information by way of parliamentary questions. The same applies to all such bodies. Otherwise we might as well ask why we are here at all, abolish the Dáil and set up a commission to run the country.

Charging and collecting fees is a function of this commission. Will the commission set the level of fees for examinations? If not, whose function will that be? It is crucially important that the integrity of the examinations system is maintained. It must be transparent and quickly respond to the concerns that students, schools or parents might have. The Minister is going to distance himself and the Legislature from this area by establishing the commission; it is a retrograde step. The Minister should examine this again. I have respect for the Minister and he is challenging in many things he does. It is refreshing to have an open debate with a Minister.

The Minister has told us that he wants to give as much accountability as possible but when we submit questions in future it will not be the Minister that considers whether or not they are appropriate, it will be somebody in between. It is essential that this information be available to the public. We have had similar problems with other bodies and I have had it with the EPA in particular. There is a need to find a mechanism to deal with questions to this body and others like it. We do not seek the information for our own satisfaction; we seek it because it is of public interest. If this becomes more expensive to operate as the years go on and the Minister cannot give it more funding, the commission may struggle to carry out its responsibilities but we will not get answers to any concerns we might have. There is an issue regarding the distance between an important body like this and public accountability, including adequate resources.

We could have an interesting debate on accountability. I do not strongly disagree with some of the views expressed by members. The specific instances members have raised regarding this body are within the remit of policy decisions and I would be answerable to the House for those.

The public cannot have it both ways. There was controversy over decisions taken when politicians were responsible for the planning system and a Minister had the final say on an application. People sought an independent body. People were not satisfied when the Minister was involved in environmental protection and the EPA was established. It is extremely difficult to keep the balance between the desirability of decisions not being made on a political basis and the Minister being answerable to the House when things go wrong. I do not think anybody would advocate returning to the previous regime in the area of planning. We can have a good debate on this, but how we ensure the Minister is responsible for the policy is the important issue, as is the operation of the policy by the commission.

Members should not denigrate their role as members of committees of these Houses. Members can meet those who operate the system and establish how policy is being implemented. If the chief executive tells a committee that the commission received inadequate funding then the Minister is responsible and will be answerable to the House.

Will we get answers if we raise questions in the House?

The Minister has emphasised policy, but what is he splitting it from? What is the Minister withholding?

The other side is operational. For example, if the tracking system malfunctions, it is an operational matter. The examinations commission is technically responsible in this instance. The Minister may be asked about changing policy in the aftermath of such an event.

We are now getting to the nub of the issue. If a tracking problem occurs Deputies can, at present, ask the Minister questions on it and he is obliged to respond. If I am to understand him correctly, he is telling us this will no longer apply and the role of Deputies in this and other matters will be abolished.

Deputies will have the right to question the chief executive and not a third party like the Minister. Members will be able to ask him about all the operational details and can make a report to the House on their findings. The Minister will then have to respond to the report and outline how he will ensure it does not happen again. It provides more accountability rather than less.

The Government is responsible for the delivery of policy and operations. For example, if there was an operational problem due to lack of resources the Minister should be held accountable. There is a relationship between operations and policy. The Minister continually says he will respond to questions on policy. If there are problems, the board may blame the Government for a lack of funding while the Government may point to problems with the board. The delivery of policy should always rest with the Minister.

The board and the exam commission will be responsible for it. I will be accountable.

The Minister must be accountable.

This is crucially important. This is a big change in what has been happening. The Minister has quite rightly said that the commission can be summoned before the committee. That is how it stands now. My understanding is that any officials can be invited here to be answerable. It can take a lot of time for committees to get around doing so, whereas parliamentary questions, as the Minister knows, are almost immediate and are one of the fastest ways of getting information. I am not talking about the Minister interfering with the day-to-day operations, but about getting information. Up to now Deputies can get information by way of parliamentary question and the Minister provides it. That facility is to be taken away because of the establishment of this commission. The information will not be freely available. For example, the statistics which the Minister alluded to, such as how much money is collected, when it is collected and so on, are important operational details. Will the Minister say who will be responsible for the setting of the level of fees? Will it be him or the commission? Where does the Minister see that responsibility lying because he says the commission's function is to charge and collect fees?

Members seem to be suggesting that there must be a different framework than that which has existed up to now whereby, on the one hand, one promotes independence thereby enhancing integrity and on the other accountability. I am not aware of such a framework from my years here but perhaps it exists in the public sector in this or another jurisdiction. One could continue this debate all day but, unless we can say there is potential for such an alternative framework or that it exists elsewhere, it is futile. I am not taking at all from the merits of public accountability through the Minister.

The Minister is quite right to point out that the Minister of the day will continue to be responsible for statistics, policy and so on. However, members have made a reasonable point. An example that drives everybody mad is the NRA, which could not be said to have information that is sensitive or in anyway ought to be withheld in response to parliamentary questions. However, for some reason one can be virtually certain that a parliamentary question which has any reference to the NRA will not be answered.

Similarly, if there was a fear that exam papers would not be ready for an exam and the issue was not amenable to having the committee meet the commission because it would take a minimum of two weeks, Deputies would want to feel they could table a parliamentary question which would be answered the following Tuesday. They are rightly concerned about the precedent that applies to the NRA. I am less concerned about An Bord Pleanála and the EPA because they have different remits. The only example I can think of is that if one asks the Minister for Health and Children a question which relates specifically to health board policy, the response will say the Department will give what information it has and the chief executive officer of the health board will respond in detail. The letter from the chief executive officer will follow some weeks later or longer.

A distinction in terms of answerability has arisen which is unhelpful to Deputies. Both sides of the argument are partly right.

I accept that fully and some of the examples on either side are not best practice. Other organisations are more forthcoming with information than the NRA. Perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should be discussing this in relation to the establishment of these bodies and making them more accountable. In this case, the examinations commission will be more accountable. There are more rather than less ways of making people accountable.

The setting of fees is a question of policy and will be decided in the Department by me at the time of the Estimates each year. I will decide how much money we will give to the commission and how much we will expect it to raise itself. Regarding statistics, a report will be published and that is a straightforward matter. If members consider it, statistics are usually compiled and put in a report. They are usually not that available between each exam.

Very often issues arise across the board where Deputies ask for information and the very asking of the question leads to the statistics we are looking for being compiled within three, four or five days or soon after, if they cannot be done within that time. We cannot predict what will be in a report. For instance, I asked a question about the withholding of junior certificates and received a response, yet it was not in any report. I am glad the Minister is engaging with this issue and I commend him for it. Perhaps he will examine it and take on board the health board model and perhaps talk to his colleagues in Government about something similar because this is crucially important, not only for this issue but for democracy generally. People are increasingly saying there is no point having a Parliament and Deputies because there is no accountability. Its role is daily becoming diluted and diminished.

This is an opportunity for this innovative Minister to examine a mechanism whereby this commission can be accountable through parliamentary questions. The health board model exists already. Examinations are important and emotive as far as students are concerned and if there are errors and mistakes, it is important that our constituents continue to have the same safeguards and mechanisms they have had up to now. They deserve not to have that system damaged, diluted and changed as the Minister suggests.

It would be a pity if the presentation today of what is involved and all its positive aspects were to be lost on this crucial issue. Perhaps the analogies we have drawn with the NRA and An Bord Pleanála are unfair in this instance but the kernel to the success of the commission is transparency and the facility to grant access. That should be incorporated to allay not just our fears but those of the public in general, because if they get the wrong impression from the beginning, the whole enterprise will come apart and opposition will build. I appeal to the Minister to give an indication that whatever is necessary will be done to avoid this body going down the road of the other bodies we have mentioned.

As I said at the outset of this discussion, I accept the fears members have in relation to this matter. We have agreed to disagree on some of the analogies that were drawn. As an immediate step I will talk to the State examinations commission. It is preparing a customer service plan and perhaps we might include in that a specific period within which Members of the Oireachtas would get replies to their queries. That is one mechanism I could investigate. The commission will soon be operational and its first exams will be over in September or thereabouts. Undoubtedly, the compilation of statistics and so on will take a little while after that. Perhaps at that stage I will engage again with members of the committee specifically on this topic to see whether the protocol we have put in place meets their requirements. If not, we could look at the order again to see whether it could be made more explicit.

I do not think the issue of resources has been addressed. Adequate resources must be given to the commission into the future to ensure it is able to do its work properly.

I said this at a meeting of inspectors, but whoever did the negotiations for this body from the staff side did a very good job. The exam commissioners and the staff themselves are very satisfied. An extra 31 members of staff have been appointed, over and above what was available previously. Of those inspectors operating currently in this area, 30 are being taken off their inspection duties. They had to try and do their inspection duties at the same time as setting exams and so on. The more senior of these have now gone, lock, stock and barrel, over to the exams branch itself. They are currently being replaced in the inspectorate. A very good deal was done in this regard. From the point of view of resources, there is no problem - everybody has expressed satisfaction, including the unions. The full-time allocation of inspectors is 31, so from that point of view nobody need have any worries.

A number of Deputies and Senators mentioned continuous assessment. The sentiment about continuous assessment not turning into continuous harassment is certainly one with which I agree. The Department has not been able to focus on this kind of thing to the extent we would like because it is tied up with day-to-day administration. We need to move towards continuous assessment. This does not mean internal assessment done by the teachers in the school, although that is working well in some cases. There is a distinction to be drawn between the junior certificate and the leaving certificate in this regard, but it is a route we must follow. It is important that we, as public representatives, note that education is all about young people and we must put them in the centre and concentrate on what is most effective for them.

Deputy O'Sullivan and others mentioned people who have not done as well as they should in the exam system, not through any lack of intelligence, but because they are overwhelmed. I have personal experience of this, as have most members from being teachers and parents. There are also different types of intelligence and we must let them be brought out and maximised. We must be able to affirm the positive aspects of these children rather than giving a certificate for their failure. That is where the exam system should be going. I know there will not be any disagreement on that among the members of the committee. There may be disagreement around the edges on our methods, but we must do it. As public representatives, we must convince everybody involved in education, including teachers and parents - parents are often the ones who insist on giving priority to points and the curriculum - that this is what we should be doing within our education system. It is all about children and young people. We need to get that message across, and I know I will have the support of the committee in this.

The integrity of the system will be guaranteed. There was a question about how the certificates will appear. The State harp will appear on the top of the certificate and it will say "State Examination Commission" rather than "Department of Education and Science". We are, I am told, one of the last countries in the OECD in which the Department of Education and Science is in control of the exams. It is more recognised that an outside body, independent of the Department, actually deals with the exams in other countries. In some countries there have been suspicions that departments of education were purposely setting exam standards. This enhances rather than diminishes the independence of the exams.

I thank the Minister and his officials.

Barr
Roinn