"..... the immediate reaction of management and staff at the time was one of shock and disbelief It was believed that a problem of this nature could not arise.
But happen it did, in the Department of Education's exams branch, as the Price Waterhouse report on the "operational failures" of last year's Leaving Cert art exam amply records.
The human cost of the repeated errors made by the Department is not recounted here missed college places, emigration, repeating the Leaving Cert, a year wasted.
In all, 50 students were not given full credit for their efforts in the exam, and at least eight missed third level places. In addition, 359 students were upgraded after being marked too harshly.
The report sets out in alarming detail the repeated errors made in the examining and marking of the art exam. There are multiple examples of deficient arrangements, regulations being ignored, misunderstandings, poor communications within the exams branch and the failure of internal investigations.
Time after time, the opportunity arose to spot the mistakes that had been made. But repeatedly, these opportunities were missed, as vital pieces of exam work and check sheets went missing and checking systems failed. As a result, the mess got worse and more students became mired in it. It was only through the complaints of teachers and parents that the catalogue of errors was uncovered. But even now, most of the missing pieces of artwork remain missing, and it seems it will never be known exactly how the fiasco occurred.
One parent rang the Department last November 20th, inquiring why her earlier letter expressing disappointment with her daughter's results had not been replied to. When this could not be located, she sent it again.
It was this letter that set the alarm bells ringing. An official checked the student's marks and found she had not been credited for the craft work component of the art exam. The same problem arose with 13 other candidates from the girl's school, the Ursuline College in Sligo, and no attendance rolls could be found for these students.
Eventually 50 students were found to be affected, of whom 47 received upgrades.
Price Waterhouse rejects the thesis that someone tried to conceal the errors that occurred. But it notes as unsatisfactory and inexplicable the disappearance of vital items, such as the attendance rolls for the Ursuline College, the master list of all schools with students doing the craft work component and the Sligo parent's letter.
The report also defends the Department against allegations that it dragged its heels in dealing with the mistakes, or in informing senior officials and the Minister for Education. Between November 22nd and December 12th, the exams branch in Athlone was scoured for the missing items but with little success.
The investigators say assistant examiners were given clear written instructions not to enter a total on the marking sheet when a candidate did not have marks for all four components of the art exam. However, some examiners did not follow this instruction, thereby overriding a significant checking procedure.
The report also looks at the case of the 359 upgrades awarded last August after one assistant examiner marked students too harshly. But for the "entirely fortuitous presence of an art inspector in the stores on the day a complaint came in from a school, this report might not have been unearthed, it concludes.
Arrangements for marking the art exam differed substantially from those applying for other subjects. The marking scheme was less detailed and had been in use, unrevised, since 1991. Sample answers had not been developed.
There was considerable confusion at the marking conference a bout the marking of certain questions. For example, if students used Jack B. Yeats as an example of a contemporary Irish figurative painter, the chief examiner and the chief advising examiner said the answer was to be allowed but the marks halved.
But the other art inspector has no recollection of this instruction, and the assistant examiners who carried out most of the marking had differing interpretations.
The chief advising examiner noted that the assistant examiner whose work was subsequently remarked was "inclined to be a hard marker", but no action was taken.
The report reserves its stones criticism for the process of remarking this examiner's scripts. These arrangements were "hastily conceived" and involved inexperienced staff, and marks were awarded without any monitoring or approval process. Two of the assistant examiners were found to be over generous in their marking. The chief advising examiner was on holiday and could not be contacted, and the deputy chief inspector was on leave.
The Department conducted an internal review of the affair, but Price Waterhouse says this failed to highlight the "significant deficiencies" in the procedures adopted.
