The High Court has quashed the Minister for Education’s decision to refuse calculated grades to a home-educated Leaving Certificate candidate whose mother was also his teacher. The court found that excluding him because of that conflict of interest was irrational, unreasonable and unlawful.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Meenan on 19 August 2020, concerned the 2020 calculated-grades scheme, introduced after the June Leaving Certificate examinations were cancelled during the Covid-19 pandemic. The applicant had sought to be considered for grades; he did not claim an entitlement to receive them.
Under the guide for out-of-school learners, an estimated mark could not be accepted from a tutor closely related to the candidate. The applicant’s mother, who had taught him at home, could not sign the required declaration that there was no conflict of interest. On 29 July, the Department’s Calculated Grades Executive Office said it could not provide a grade in any of his subjects because there was no satisfactory, credible evidence from an appropriate source.
The applicant argued that the scheme treated home-educated candidates unfairly. For students attending school, the judgment noted, a teacher with a conflict could still supply data or factual information, while a principal or deputy principal provided additional oversight. The out-of-school guide offered no comparable arrangement.
The Minister argued that an independent teacher, without prior knowledge of the applicant or his work, would be conducting an individualised assessment outside the design of the calculated-grades system. The Minister also said that offering such an assessment could create a facility that would need to be made available to all candidates.
The court rejected that reasoning. It said a non-conflicted teacher could assess the available data and evidence using professional judgment, as teachers do in schools when a colleague has a conflict. It also held that the Department could not conclude that the evidence was unsatisfactory or not credible without examining it. The judgment did not decide whether the applicant would receive a calculated grade; it said a non-conflicted or independent teacher should be involved in considering an estimated mark for each subject.
The court granted an order quashing the 29 July refusal and declared that refusing a calculated grade in these circumstances was arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and contrary to law. It made no finding about the applicant’s likely results, which it said were irrelevant to its decision. The matter was listed before the judge for 25 August 2020 to consider whether further orders were needed to give effect to the judgment.