A Leaving Certificate student with dyslexia has challenged the State Examinations Commission’s refusal to give him an adult “reader” to help him understand the papers in his forthcoming exams.
When aged nine, the boy secured a placement at a special school for children with dyslexia of higher or average intelligence but with lesser literacy skills than 98 per cent of their peers. Since returning to his mainstream school, his efforts to keep up with his peers involved attending after school study five days a week.
Under a “reasonable accommodation” policy operated by the Commission, students who believe certain permanent or long-term conditions may affect their examination performance can apply for special arrangements.
After the boy’s school confirmed he would need special arrangements for the Junior Certificate, he got a reader, an adult exam supervisor to read exam questions to him in a way he could understand, and was not penalised for spelling and grammar mistakes.
In seeking a reader for the Leaving Certificate, he exhibited a letter from a clinical psychologist who said his fluctuations in attention and listening are exacerbated by anxiety in exam situations.
The guidelines for a reader include scoring 85 or less in word reading on the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). He was refused a reader after scoring 90 on that but got a waiver for spelling, grammar and punctuation for language subjects.
After his appeal against that refusal was rejected last January, he took judicial review proceedings which settled on terms including quashing the Independent Appeals Committee (IAC) refusal of a reader and the matter being reconsidered by that Committee.
After he scored 85 on another word reading test in February, the IAC decided on February 22nd he should not be given a reader on foot of material including his having scored more than 85 on two tests and 85 on a third.
He has challenged that second refusal in fresh judicial review proceedings before Mr Justice Seamus Noonan. The hearing concluded on Friday with judgment reserved.
Among grounds of challenge outlined by his counsel Michéal P O’Higgins SC, with Brendan Hennessy BL and instructed by solicitor Eileen McCabe, the student alleged he has been left “in the dark” about the true basis for the second refusal and also argued the reasonable accommodation scheme is silent on what system is in place for determining an application with multiple test results.
The scheme, while setting out thresholds for eligibility, expressly states each case is considered on its merits and that means an applicant could score over 85 and still be eligible for a reader, he claimed.
In opposing the application, the Commission, represented by Bill Shipsey SC, argued the refusal was reasonable, rational, based on all the evidence submitted and based on relevant considerations.
Having submitted evidence during the application process, the student cannot now seek to present fresh evidence without any context or explanation for the different test scores, it argued. The student appeared to be maintaining the Committee should only have considered the rest result of 85, submitted in February 2016, and ignored other evidence submitted during the application process, it submitted.
