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

81. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills his views on a recent claim that education authorities do not want to draw attention to the volume of upgrades in the leaving certificate in view of the fact that it could undermine public confidence in State exams. [51820/17]

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

The operation and delivery of the State examinations is the responsibility of the State Examinations Commission (SEC). The SEC has informed me that the openness and transparency of the Leaving Certificate examination place it among the most transparent globally, with published marking schemes, marked scripts made available for viewing by candidates prior to deciding on an appeal and an accessible multi-stage appeals process. Leaving Certificate examinations are marked in accordance with marking schemes which are published by the SEC following the marking of candidates’ work. Examiners are drawn from among the subject experts who apply for the positions. They are fully trained in the application of the marking scheme at a two-day training and standardising conference before they commence to mark candidates’ work. Examiners’ work is subject to ongoing review by more experienced examiners throughout the marking process and they must follow the advice of these more experienced examiners if any deviation from the marking scheme and national standard is identified.

In a system as large as the Leaving Certificate in which the SEC generates 400,000 individual grades based on 900,000 items of candidates’ work, the SEC fully acknowledges that examiner error can happen. For this reason, the SEC has a robust and transparent appeals process in place. Before deciding whether to appeal a result, candidates, accompanied by a person of their choosing (generally their teacher in the subject), are encouraged to view their marked scripts. They are provided with the marking schemes used by the examiners which assists the candidate to identify if an error in marking has occurred, and candidates are invited to highlight any such errors when appealing. In the course of remarking the full script, the appeal examiner is also obliged to address and provide a written response to the points raised by candidates in this way. The appeal marking is undertaken by a different examiner to the earlier, Summer, marking and is subject to rigorous overview by more experienced examiners (again, different personnel to those involved in the Summer marking). Ultimately, candidates who continue to be unhappy with how their appeal has been processed by the SEC can have their case referred to a panel of Independent Appeal Scrutineers and, if they choose to raise specific issues of concern regarding the application of the marking scheme to their work, these must be fully addressed and answered by the Chief Examiner for the subject.

The SEC issues almost 400,000 Leaving Certificate grades each year. In recent years the number of individual subject appeals has generally been around 9,800. There were approximately 1,400 upgrades awarded  on foot of the 2017 Leaving Certificate appeals process. Up to 2016 the successful rate of upgrade was approximately 18% of the appeals received. In 2017 this rate was 14.5%, which reflects the move to broader 10% grade bands in 2017, compared to the previous system of 5% sub-grades (when all original grades were within a maximum of 2.5% away from the next grade boundary). These rates compare very favourably with other examination systems, particularly in the UK, where the average rate of upgrade is 20% (based on 10% grading bands). The number of grades changing on foot of the Leaving Certificate appeal system this year represented 0.36% of all the grades awarded in the 2017 Leaving Certificate examination.

The State Examinations Commission has assured me that it is satisfied that it operates a transparent, accessible and effective Leaving Certificate appeals system in which candidates can raise issues of concern regarding the marking of their work and have these fully and transparently addressed.