Shane Cassells (Meath West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Farrell and officials from the Department. It is 24 years since I sat a mock English junior certificate paper but I have an appreciation of that period in my life and the importance these examinations play. This is especially the case in the junior certificate cycle because it is one's first big examination in secondary school. English is the big opener in the process and it is a huge step for the young people who take it. Today's meeting has arisen from the real-time pressure of a mock paper, as opposed to the State papers. I pay tribute to the petitioner, Ms Tara O'Sullivan, for showing the experience and foresight for this at such a young age. She has come to the Houses of the Oireachtas to seek positive change in the State examinations and there has been a reaction from several thousands of people, not to mention considerable media coverage. We talk about positive engagement and this is a clear demonstration of that.

The responses seem to be that the mock papers are not what we are concerned with. They seem to say that we are only here to deal with the State side but that is a disengagement from the reality, which is that the mocks play a vital role in the preparation for the State exams. We cannot dissociate ourselves from that reality as they are part of our educational system. I accept the points made by Mr. Farrell and Mr. Ó Donnchadha that there needs to be oversight. In the absence of engagement, however, we leave ourselves open to the scenario we see today. Mr. Ó Donnchadha spoke about positively drawing attention to guidelines but that is to say it is up to individual schools to decide if they want to positively engage. I feel we need a cohesive approach among all secondary schools. How does the Department believe we can achieve that if we just ask people to draw attention to guidelines?

The fact that Ms O'Sullivan drew attention to this allowed the State Examinations Commission to look at the addition of time but how did the commission reassure candidates that the examination papers would be suitable for completion in a two-hour period? Reference was made to everybody being happy. How did the witnesses from the Department draw those conclusions? When one walks out of an examination hall one is happy that it is over, whether one has completed all the questions or not. What sample did the witnesses get of people across the country being happy? English is a different paper from all others. In economics, accountancy or maths there is a set time to complete questions but in English, for which I had a huge grá, one tries to elicit creativity from students. The witnesses said adding time was going in the wrong direction but, of all papers, English is the one in respect of which we should allow creativity to flourish and restricting time is not the way to go. I acknowledge that continuous assessment is positive in this regard.

Can Mr. Farrell answer my question about reassurance? How was the assessment done which found that people were happy?