The High Court has quashed a decision refusing a student with dyslexia access to a reader for his Leaving Certificate exams, finding that the appeals committee did not give an understandable reason for its decision or tell him how he could address concerns about his test results.
The student had applied for a reader under the State Examinations Commission’s Reasonable Accommodation Scheme. The scheme required, among other criteria, a standard score of 85 or less on an approved word-reading test. An initial school test in May 2015 gave him a score of 90. A psychologist’s test the following month gave him 101. A further school test in February 2016, submitted after an earlier judicial review was settled, gave him a score of 85.
The Independent Appeals Committee (IAC) considered all three scores and refused the application. It noted that two scores were above 85 and the latest was 85, contrasting it with the earlier score of 90 from the same test and examiner. The committee said it had considered all the evidence, but did not explain why the qualifying score did not result in a reader being granted.
The student sought judicial review and an order quashing the IAC’s February 2016 decision. His counsel argued that the reasons were inadequate and that he had not been told he was expected to explain the differences between the scores. The student had also received a waiver from assessment of spelling, grammar and punctuation; that accommodation was not the decision challenged in these proceedings.
The respondents argued that the student should first have appealed to the Ombudsman, and that the IAC was entitled to rely on the evidence before it. They said the difference between the test results required an explanation from the student.
Mr Justice Noonan held that the decision did not show how the committee resolved the conflicting scores or why it rejected the most recent result. The scheme contemplated a single test score and did not set out how multiple scores should be assessed. The court also noted that the student had been permitted to submit the further test after the earlier proceedings were compromised, while the application form said later submissions would not be considered. If the committee had concerns about the latest score, the student was entitled to know and have an opportunity to respond.
The judge rejected the argument that an Ombudsman appeal prevented judicial review in these circumstances. He held the decision could not stand and granted certiorari quashing the IAC’s refusal. The order did not itself grant the student a reader.