Lack of accountability - Why do we tolerate this sloppiness?

It seems that blunders in exam papers have become as predictable as the splendid summer weather that arrives each year to distract students from the great, possibly life-defining challenges facing them. This year is no exception.

The winter-weather siege lifted and the sun shone magnificently almost as students sat down to be assessed on years of school work. Already, and long before the school exams even approach the closing straight, we have the 2013 episode — a multiple one — of the hardy annual Exam Paper Blunders.

Students sitting the CAO-points important Leaving Certificate higher level maths were given inaccurate information, which meant that the question could not be completed or that two conclusions could be reached. This will have an impact on some students’ third level options and no amount of spin will change that.

The Junior Cert errors were in maths and CSPE but the consequences of those cock ups pale into insignificance when compared to the Leaving Cert maths fiasco.

Preparing these exams and making sure they run smoothly is a very significant logistical challenge but its very predictability, its set place on the calendar and the importance it assumes in students’ lives, means that they must always run as smoothly as is possible. The format has been with us for many, many years so a considerable bank of experience has been built up and all procedural weaknesses ironed out a long time ago.

So, how does it happen, year after year, that there is a level of sloppiness that undermines the process, limits students’ opportunities and undermines the integrity of the entire educational system?

Could it be that the absence of accountability, the veto on the kind of sanctions that would apply in other areas of life, facilitates a less than rigorous approach to setting and checking exam papers? If, say, the person or persons responsible for the maths’ paper blunder, or any of the other blunders over the years, lost their job or was even suspended without pay, would the odds shorten or lengthen on more blunders next year?

As we picked through the ashes of our razed economy, one of the lessons learnt was that unless effective systems of accountability — and consequences if deserved — are in place then failure becomes a high probability rather than a remote possibility. Demands for new levels of political and banking accountability are persistent though as yet unsatisfied.

Just yesterday, a minister endorsed the suggestion that the gardaí be subject to an independent inquiry on how so many drivers had penalty points dropped because an internal inquiry did not seem comprehensive. This suggests, at the very least, another failure of accountability in our public life.

There is a very strong perception that State employees — and some of the professionals who facilitated years of property madness — are immune from the consequences of their failings and this security blanket is at the root of so many of the weaknesses in our public and professional service provision.

If we are to rebuild this economy and become as competitive, commercially or educationally, as we need to be, it is time that indulgence was ended both for society and the great majority of public employees committed to decent standards.