Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue and it is good that the Minister for Education and Skills is present to respond on what I am sure he will agree is a most serious issue.

Last week the High Court ruled in favour of Rebecca Carter, a young woman who was forced to take the State to court to start in her chosen college course. While we had lots of sympathy from the Government last week, for example, when the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, took Leaders' Questions, the truth is that this lady had to put herself and her family at considerable risk to achieve the just outcome she deserved. Thankfully, she has since started college, but the case has left a number of serious issues to be resolved.

It is important to put on the record some of the issues that came to light during this court case. Approximately 54,500 students sat the leaving certificate examinations this year. I am told the State Examinations Commission issued 383,764 grades from approximately 600,000 individual scripts. The proportion of appeals lodged against grades issued this year is very low, at 9,092 scripts from 5,200 students, or approximately 10%. When appeals over oral exams are included, I believe the number of items to be corrected on appeal was about 15,000.

Even though 10% of students and less than 2% of scripts go to appeal, it takes 40 days to recheck the appeals as opposed to 54 days to mark the entire leaving certificate. This is a system that is not fit for purpose. A total of 1,652 examiners corrected the scripts at first instance. This drops to about 400 for the appeals process. These figures came out during the court hearing and I am grateful to my correspondent who gave me them. The State Examinations Commission has offered no explanation for the 75% reduction in the number of examiners available for appeal. Why does that happen? The judge in the case noted that if the same number of examiners, who had been available for the initial corrections, were available for the appeal, then all the appeal scripts could have been completed in one day.

Given the facts revealed to us in a court action by a citizen at cost to her family, it is not surprising that Mr. Justice Humphreys stated that the system was "manifestly not fit for purpose". It is a ridiculous state of affairs. I have no wish to make a political football of this because the State Examinations Commission must be seen to be a non-political, impartial, fair judge of the achievements of students in leaving certificate examinations. However, the Minister and the State Examinations Commission need to get on top of this for next year.

We need to establish the scale of the issue and some of the facts have been set out very starkly in the court action before Mr. Justice Humphreys. Many other students are waiting to have their appeals finalised by the second week of October and some of them will also have missed college entry. We estimate - the Minister might confirm this - that approximately 300 students every year could have their points increased sufficiently to get a particular college place that they otherwise would not have been offered. This weekend, The Irish Timesindicated that several hundred students annually end up securing higher-preference college places. Is it in the region of 300 students?

Is this an issue that is linked to business studies or is it a general issue? As I mentioned in a radio interview, I am certainly aware of another case where marks for a business studies paper were incorrectly moved from the front of the exam paper to the exam sheet. Is the Minister aware of other cases? Is there a timeline for a review? Is the State Examinations Commission appealing this decision? Is it not accepting the judge's findings? Crucially, is it paying the costs of Rebecca Carter and her family in this action?

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. I also thank him for withdrawing it last week when I was unable to take it because I wanted to give it seriousness.

I am pleased that Rebecca Carter got the course she wanted, which is great. However, the Deputy is right that we do not want young people having to go to court to get access to college courses. Since the ruling was made, as the Deputy knows, the State Examinations Commission has met. It arranged for the correction of Ms Carter's paper. It also has indicated to its executive that it wants an urgent review of the timelines involved. It is clearly taking responsibility in this. I have convened for this week a meeting of State Examinations Commission and the higher education institutions to find out how we can resolve the issue.

As a backdrop to this - I will deal with some of the points the Deputy made - one of the key changes made this year, as the Deputy probably knows, is that UCD issued a decision that students who, after 30 September, got upgrades in their results could not participate in this year's course.

That was a significant change. However, as the Deputy rightly said, the case has also revealed long time lags in the appeals process and, while the State Examinations Commission is independent, we will need to look at them. Some of them start from the process the commission undertakes after 15 August when it issues all scripts back to schools for examination and gives until 5 September for a decision to be made as to whether a case will be appealed. It then takes from 5 September to 10 October to retrieve the scripts, dispatch them to the examiners and have the examination carried out. The commission also applies more due diligence or quality assurance to the rechecking than the initial process, with a higher level of re-sampling of scripts corrected. Clearly, while it is right that the commission has a robust system in place, we have to shorten the timescale.

Another factor at play is that, increasingly, colleges are starting their terms much earlier than they used to. There was a time when they did not start so early and the schedule was in line. Therefore, UCD makes a reasonable point that a student starting six weeks into a course is going to miss something. We need to resolve this issue. I have to recognise the independence of both the colleges in determining their admission policies and the State Examinations Commission, given that this independence is something the public rightly values. Notwithstanding that, we can do a lot better in shortening the timescale.

On the turnover of results, the Deputy is correct. The level of 9,800 this year is not low and is typical, with 9,500 being the figure for last year and approximately 9,000 for other years. Some 14.5%, or approximately 1,400, are upgraded. The figure for those who receive offers is significant, with over 400 receiving offers as a result of an upgrade. The vast majority take up the offers in the same year, but some opt for deferral to the following year, although this option was not available in UCD as there had been a change. We can do much better in that regard. I will be working with the two bodies concerned to make sure we resolve this issue.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for clarifying that there are 400 students whose course and, possibly, life change as a result of the appeals process. I can well understand why some of the higher education institutions want to get this done as early as possible - I imagine veterinary science, in particular, is one relevant subject - given that there are limits on the numbers of students who can take practical lessons and so on.

The Minister's key role is to try to join the education system together. Clearly, in this case, he has allowed it to slide. UCD was allowed to make the change without any reference to the Minister or the State Examinations Commission, yet the Minister is only calling a meeting to discuss it after the horse has bolted, somebody has put their financial security at risk by taking a High Court action and others have lost out. However, it happened this year and we cannot blame UCD for it. The blame really lies with the Minister for not bringing everyone together to try to work out a common-sense solution. It takes too long to deal with appeals. It seems to be an administrative process that has been allowed to slide. The approach appears to be, "It happens every year and this is the way we do it. We are independent and no one can interfere with us." That has to end.

What the Minister has not said is whether he accepts the decision of the High Court and whether he and the State Examinations Commission will appeal the decision of Mr. Justice Humphreys who will, I understand, be issuing a written judgment in the next few weeks and ordered that the system be changed before next summer. The Minister needs to give an indication that, apart from having a meeting this week with the universities and the State Examinations Commission, which is way too late, given that it should have been done when it became apparent that UCD was changing its policy, the system will change for next year's examinations in accordance with the order of the High Court. Is this something the Minister has agreed to do, or will the State Examinations Commission faff around for the next few weeks and then appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal? The Minister needs to let us know because students and the universities need to know. We need certainty and an examination system in which people can have confidence. Unless the Minister accepts the judgment of Mr. Justice Humphreys, confidence in the State examinations system will be shattered.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I do not accept the Deputy's contention that I should have directed the State Examinations Commission. It is an independent body and was established as such. In the case of any examination script where a student can apply for rectification, the commission has criteria whereby it re-tots and immediately gives the result. In other cases it does not provide for rectification because the issues are more complex and it needs to look at a paper to evaluate it. It is absolutely right that it is the commission that should make the decision, not me or-----

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not suggest the Minister should make it.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should look at the "blacks". He suggested it should not be independent and-----

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suggested the Minister should have brought the State Examinations Commission and the universities together before the rule was changed.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has made his point.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy did say it. If he looks at the Official Report, he will see what he said. The board has accepted the court judgment. It has rechecked and made a decision that its executive should review the unacceptable timelines. I have not seen the written judgment, nor have they. Obviously, they will have to see the written judgment, but from my point of view, we are determined to ensure this will not happen again. We have to ensure the timelines will be shortened, while in no way undermining confidence in the leaving certificate examinations process. That is in everyone's interests. The colleges rely exclusively on the State Examinations Commission in their admission policies. They do not have independent admission policies, although they are independent in changing the rules. Tthere is something of an anomaly in that they can change the rules without notifying the commission, but that is their right. I am determined to ensure we will resolve the issue without impinging on the independence of either of the bodies.