sec reasonable accom final · 2008-01-18 · • ms sarah craig, head of disability databases...

A d v i s o r y G r o u p o n R e a s o n a b l e A c c o m m o d a t i o n s

Advisory Group on ReasonableAccommodations

CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT

•

Consultative Session on Reasonable Accommodations Royal Hospital Kilmainham, Dublin

17 October 2007

October 2007

SEC Reasonable Accom FINAL 31/10/2007 12:21

3


Contents

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7

1. The State Examinations ........................................................................................................... 9

2. Reasonable Accommodations ................................................................................................ 13

3. Analysis of submissions and meetings ................................................................................... 19

4. Reasonable Accommodations in other jurisdictions .............................................................. 33

5. Issues for consideration .......................................................................................................... 37

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 41

Appendix 1 - List of submissions received ................................................................................. 43


5


Acknowledgements

The Advisory Group on Reasonable Accommodations would like to acknowledge all those who respondedto the invitation for submissions in the national media. All submissions are helpful in assisting the AdvisoryGroup in its deliberations and in ensuring that the recommendations of the Group are informed by as broada perspective as possible.

The Advisory Group is also grateful to those who participated in the Focus Group meetings and in theConsultative Session in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham on 17 October 2007. The comments and informationprovided will provide a significant resource of material which will inform the work of the Advisory Group andthe formulation of their recommendations to the State Examinations Commission.


7


Introduction

Background

In January 2007, the State Examinations Commission established an Advisory Group to review policy andpractice in Reasonable Accommodations in the State Examinations.

The Terms of Reference of the Advisory Group are:

1. Having regard to both the importance of providing a state examinations system that promotes highstandards of quality and integrity and the need to ensure access, participation and benefit for a l ls t u d e n t s , t o r e - e x a m i n e / r e v i e w p o l i c y a n d p r a c t i c e i n t h e a r e a o f r e a s o n a b l eaccommodations.

2. In undertaking the re-examination/review to consider all relevant issues and to take account of bestpractice internationally.

3. Arising from the re-examination/review of current policy and practice, to make appropriaterecommendat ions to the SEC and to p ropose an imp lementa t ion s t ra tegy fo r suchrecommendations, including details of the cost, timing and other practical considerations.

4. The Advisory Group will consult widely in its re-examination/review.

Membership of the Advisory Group

The members of the Advisory Group on Reasonable Accommodations are:

• Professor Áine Hyland, former Vice-President University College Cork (Chairperson)• Mr Liam Arundel, former CEO of City of Dublin VEC• Ms Sarah Craig, Head of Disability Databases Division, Health Research Board• Ms Eilis Humphreys, Principal, St. Louis High School, Rathmines, Dublin 6, (Currently seconded to the

Leadership Development for Schools programme as an Assistant National Co-ordinator)• Ms Anna Kelly, Director of Curriculum and Quality Assurance, FÁS• Ms Isabel Nisbet, Director of Regulation and Standards, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

(UK).

The Advisory Group is assisted in its work by three members of the State Examinations Commission. These are:

• Ms Andrea Feeney, Principal Officer, who acts as Secretary to the Group. • Mr Michael Kiely, Assistant Principal Officer, Operations Division who provides advice on

operational matters • Mr Jerome Leonard, Examinations and Assessment Manager, who provides professional advice •

and research assistance on examinations and assessment issues.

Consultative process

In accordance with its Terms of Reference, the Advisory Group established a consultative process consistingof a number of elements, as follows:

(a) Invitations for submissions to the Advisory Group were published in the national media in April 2007.Contact was made with the National Disability Authority and all constituent representative organisationswere written to individually and invited to make submissions. All submissions received wereacknowledged. The content of submissions received was analysed thematically and is produced inChapter 3.

(b) Meetings were held in April / May 2007 with the key statutory bodies involved in the area. Theseincluded the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) and the National EducationalPsychological Service (NEPS). The Advisory Group also met with the CEO of the National Council forSpecial Education (NCSE).


8


(c) Focus Group meetings were scheduled with candidates, Principals and teachers at which particularissues relating to the current scheme of Reasonable Accommodations were discussed.

(d) A Consultative Document was produced in September 2007. This was based on an analysis of thesubmissions received, meetings held, preliminary research conducted by the Advisory Group andstudies undertaken both of current practice in the State Examinations Commission and ofinternational practice in Reasonable Accommodations. The issues raised formed the basis of theConsultation Session in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, Dublin on 17 October 2007.

Consultative Document

The purpose of this Consultative Document is to assist the further development of the consultative process.The Consultative Document seeks to

• contextualise the state examinations and the assessment principles under which they operate• highlight some issues around the operation of the current Scheme of Reasonable Accommodations• inform discussion in relation to international practice on Reasonable Accommodations• summarise the submissions received on a thematic basis• facilitate and promote further discussion and clarification of the views of individuals and groups on

particular aspects of the Scheme of Reasonable Accommodations.

The outcome of an appeal to the Circuit Court of a finding of the Equality Tribunal in relation to the annotationof certificates is expected in October 2007. The Advisory Group is aware of these proceedings andanticipates that the outcome of the case may inform its deliberations and subsequent recommendations.


9


CHAPTER 1

The State Examinations

This chapter outlines the context in which the state examinations are operated. It outlines the role of theDepartment of Education and Science, the State Examinations Commission and the National Council forCurriculum and Assessment in relation to the development of curricula and syllabi and in the operation of thecertificate examinations. The role of the National Educational Psychological Service in the Scheme ofReasonable Accommodations is also referred to, as is the establishment of the National Council for SpecialEducation.

Reference is also made to the key features and characteristics of the state examinations, the assessmentprinciples that underpin them, and to the national and international status of the examinations.

1.1 The State Examinations - context

The Minister for Education and Science decides all policy in relation to the state examinations, including thesyllabus content, the assessment structure, and the duration of the examinations. The determination of examination requirements is a consultative process. The National Council forCurriculum and Assessment (NCCA) develops syllabuses, including assessment specifications, andpresents them to the Minister for approval.

Developments in assessment aim to address the full range of candidate achievement, need andbackground. In addition to written examinations, the SEC operates diverse modes of assessment such asoral, aural, practical tests, and coursework, in order to evaluate a broad range of knowledge, skills andcompetencies.

The operation of the state examinations is a significant logistical exercise. Each year, the administration ofthe examinations involves:

• 116,000 candidates in four examination programmes: Junior Certificate, Leaving Certificate(established), Leaving Certif icate Vocational Programme and Leaving Certif icate AppliedProgramme

• 89 examination subjects • 985,000 grades • 1.8 million individual test items • 3 million examination papers made up of 34 million A4 pages • 250 different test components - oral, aural, practical, project and portfolio items and the written

examination papers.

The State Examinations Commission (SEC) is a statutory body established in 2003 under Section 54 of theEducation Act, 1998. The functions of the SEC are defined in the State Examinations Commission(Establishment) Order, 2003. The SEC's role is to provide a high-quality state examinations and assessmentsystem incorporating the highest standards of openness, fairness and accountability.

The SEC comprises two divisions - Operations Division and the Examinations and Assessment Division. TheOperations Division is responsible for all of the administrative and logistical functions that go into running theexaminations. The Examination and Assessment Division is responsible for ensuring the quality andstandards of all the SEC's examinations. This includes taking the necessary actions to maintain the higheststandards in the preparation of each examination annually and requiring compliance with the specifiedprotocols and procedures.

The National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) plays a key role in the assessment of applicationsfor accommodations at Leaving Certificate. Significant recent developments include the establishment of theNational Council for Special Education (NCSE) and the passing of the Education for Persons with SpecialEducational Needs Act, 2004 (EPSEN).


10


1.2 Characteristics of the Leaving Certificate

There are a number of characteristics of the Leaving Certificate examination itself which are pertinent to anydiscussion of Reasonable Accommodations. These characteristics have been referred to in a number ofdocuments and reports such as the Commission on the Points System, the NCCA Discussion Paper on SeniorCycle (2002) and at various national and international conferences such as the Association for EducationalAssessment (AEA Europe) and the International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA).

In 1998, the Minister for Education and Science requested the Expert Advisory Group on CertificateExaminations to prepare a discussion paper on special arrangements at the examinations for students withspecial needs. The Discussion Paper was published in May 1999. Responses to the Discussion Paper wereinvited, following which a Report to the Minister for Education and Science entitled Arrangements for theAssessment of Candidates with Special Needs in Certificate Examinations was produced in January 2000. Thisreport, including the principles on which the provision of arrangements for candidates with special needsmight be based, was accepted by the Minister and forms the basis of the current scheme.

The Expert Group on the Certificate Examinations (2000) stated:

• The Leaving Certificate examination itself is a key point in students' lives in that it represents studentsachievement after many years of education and it is used to make important decisions about futureeducation

• It enjoys a high status both nationally and internationally• It is essential that fairness to all candidates and the perception of that fairness be maintained in the

administration of the examination (p. 2).

The certificate examinations are terminal, centralised and, in the main, externally-assessed. The currentschedule is operated within a timeframe constrained by the pressing requirement to have results availableto feed into the college entry process conducted by the Central Applications Office (CAO). It should benoted that issues such as possible alternative models to the current system of state examinations are notwithin the terms of reference of the Advisory Group.

1.3 Assessment principles

In 2006, the SEC published a document entitled The Preparation of Test Items - Principles and Protocol. Thisdocument outlines the principles that underpin the preparation of test items and the measures in place toensure compliance with these principles. While all of the principles are important, the principles of validity,reliability and accessibility are of particular relevance in relation to Reasonable Accommodations. It is clearthat all test items prepared by the SEC, including those prepared for candidates requiring ReasonableAccommodations, must uphold and be in accordance with these core principles.

The following paragraphs have been summarised from the document The Preparation of Test Items -Principles and Protocol (SEC 2006) and issues of relevance to Reasonable Accommodations have beenhighlighted.

Validity refers to the accuracy with which an examination measures what it is intended to measure. Validityis achieved through a number of measures such as, for example, the training of contract staff and thepreparation of test items in accordance with the Manual for Drafters, Setters and Assistant Setters (SEC, 2003;revised 2006) so as to ensure that each test item is governed by the aims and objectives of the relevantpublished syllabus and is representative of the syllabus content, as defined in the syllabus. Proposedmodifications to the examination under the Scheme of Reasonable Accommodations are evaluated bysubject experts to assess the impact, if any, of the proposed modification on the validity of the examination.

Reliability refers to the consistency of the results produced by an examination. Reliability is achievedthrough, for example, clear and unambiguous test items, high standards of security and integrity and byensuring that optional elements and modified versions of test items are similar in demand to the originalversions.

Freedom from bias refers to the elimination, as far as possible, of bias from the examination. Bias is thepresence of some characteristic of an examination that results in different levels of performance bycandidates of the same level of achievement, but from different groups, such as different ethnic or gendergroups.


11


Inclusiveness and Equity refer to the extent to which examinations should reflect an inclusive view of societyand a respect for diversity.

Discrimination refers to the extent to which an individual test item, or an examination as a whole, effectivelydistinguishes between candidates of different underlying levels of achievement.

The accessibility of an examination refers to the extent to which all candidates are facilitated indemonstrating their achievements, in the context of the need to preserve the integrity, fairness and standardsof the examination. Accessibility is achieved through minimising the need for adjustments in test items forcandidates who have particular requirements; modifying examinations, where required, in accordance withthe principles set out in the Report on Arrangements for the Assessment of Candidates with Special Needs inCertificate Examinations (2000), under the direction of the relevant Examination and Assessment Manager(EAM); and commissioning relevant specialists to modify prepared test items and other assessmentmaterials and/or to advise EAMs in relation to the modification of examinations to meet particular needs.

1.4 The status of the certificate examinations

The certificate examinations in general, and the Leaving Certificate examination in particular, are generallyperceived as fair, equitable and possessing high standards of integrity. They are the subject of intensescrutiny, both in the media and in the community generally. Given the importance of the Leaving Certificateas a selection mechanism for further education and employment and the high standing in which theexamination is held internationally, it is clear that no measure or action should be taken that in any wayimpinges on, or compromises, the standing and integrity of the examination. In addition, the fact that it is ahigh stakes examination gives the requirement to protect and uphold the principle of inter-candidate equityadded importance. This requires that no measure or action be taken which confers either advantage ordisadvantage on any candidate or group of candidates.

The State Examinations Commission (SEC) is committed to maintaining and enhancing the credibility of theexamination system. In order to do this, it is necessary to put in place procedures which will help to ensurethat trustworthiness, impartiality, consistency and fairness are central to the provision of the Stateexaminations. Any compromise of these principles, either real or perceived, has the potential to damage theintegrity of the examination system and thereby undermine the current high level of public confidence in thesystem.

With regard to Reasonable Accommodations, there may be potential for conflict between the need tomaintain the integrity of the assessment and certification process on the one hand, and the need to provideaccess and opportunity for all candidates to display their level of attainment.

This potential conflict is one with which all assessment agencies must contend. The manner in which thisoccurs is explored in Chapter 4.


13


CHAPTER 2

Reasonable Accommodations

This chapter briefly outlines the legislative and educational context in which the scheme operates, thedevelopment of the Scheme of Reasonable Accommodations, and the Framework of Principles that underpinthe current scheme. Finally, some issues and statistics around the operation of the current scheme arehighlighted.

2.1 Legislative, educational, and societal contexts

Participation in large-scale assessments is now recognised as a critical element of equal opportunity andaccess to education. Inclusive assessment systems are now generally recognised as an integral componentof inclusive education. This recognition is a relatively recent phenomenon as evidenced by the developingpolicies and practices of assessment agencies in a number of jurisdictions which are set against a widerbackground of legislation.

The various pieces of legislation that have been enacted in Ireland that support the concept of wideningaccess (to education) include, for example, the Education Act, 1998; Universities Act, 1997; QualificationsAct, 1998; Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004 and the Education of Persons with Special Educational Needs(EPSEN) 2004.

2.2 The development of Reasonable Accommodations

A scheme of special arrangements (Reasonable Accommodations) has operated within the stateexaminations system in Ireland for many years. Originally administered by the Examinations Branch of theDepartment of Education, the scheme has developed significantly both in nature and scope in recent yearsin response to a number of developments. These developments include a significant legislative frameworkin relation to issues of equality, equity and access to educational provision and services, developments inthe understanding of the concept of disability and related issues, and increased awareness generally ofrights and entitlements as enshrined in law.

General principles for the operation of what was, at that time, termed Special Arrangements for Candidateswith Disabilities were outlined in Circular S40/94. The Circular stated that the special arrangements wereintended for candidates 'who would have difficulty in communicating what they know to an Examinerbecause of a physical disability, including visual and hearing impairments, or a specific learning difficulty'.

It also stated that the arrangements were intended

(a) to remove, as far as possible, the impact of the disability on the candidate's performance and thusenable the candidate to demonstrate his/her level of attainment and

(b) to ensure that, while giving candidates every opportunity to demonstrate their level ofattainment, the special arrangements will not give the candidate an unfair advantage over othercandidates in the same examination.

These two issues are core to any discussion of Reasonable Accommodations in assessment. Theyencapsulate the fundamental conflict of, on the one hand, attempting to provide access to candidates withparticular needs to demonstrate their level of attainment, while on the other, attempting to ensure that theprinciple of inter-candidate equity is not compromised in the measures taken to provide access. Resolutionof this conflict 'is likely to be complex and difficult' (Expert Advisory Group, 2000, p.3).

The report of the Expert Group outlines a Framework of Principles that underpin the current Scheme ofReasonable Accommodations. It wrote that “the principles were framed with the intention of facilitating theoperation of a responsive and flexible system, which would enable all candidates to demonstrate theirachievements, while preserving the integrity and fairness of an examination, in which special arrangementsare operated in a transparent manner” (p. 4). The principles were accepted by the Minister for Educationand Science in 2000 as 'a sound basis for dealing with this complex and difficult area' (S11/2000).


14


The implementation of the Expert Advisory Group Report (2000) marked a number of significant innovationsin the scheme of accommodations. Firstly, it introduced the notion of exemptions accompanied withcertificate annotations, secondly, 'flagged' scripts (scripts identified as taken by candidates with ReasonableAccommodation requirements) would no longer be assigned to particular examiners; thirdly, an additional20 minutes examination time was provided, on a pilot basis, for all candidates taking Leaving Certificatepapers in Irish, English, History and Geography.

2.3 Framework of principles underpinning the Scheme of Reasonable Accommodations

The following is the Framework of Principles proposed by the Expert Advisory Group on CertificateExaminations (2000, p. 3) and which underpin the current scheme:

1. Special arrangements should be made for candidates who, because of a temporary,permanent or long-term disability, have special assessment needs in examinations.

2. Provision should be made for both physical and learning disabilities.

3. Special arrangements should not put the integrity, status, or reputation of the examination at risk.

4. Special arrangements should be designed to remove as far as possible the impact of adisability on a candidate's performance, so that he or she can demonstrate in the examination his or herlevel of achievement.

5. Special arrangements are designed to assist a candidate in demonstrat ing his or herachievements in an examination setting. They are not designed to compensate for a possible lack ofachievement arising from a disability.

6. Since a core principle of the Certificate examinations is to ensure equitable treatment for allcandidates, arrangements should not give the candidate for whom they are made anadvantage over other candidates.

7. Independent evidence of a disability and support needs should be required before allowingspecial arrangements.

8. The precise arrangements to be made should be determined on the basis of the disability orimpairment established in each individual case and of the particular needs of the candidate in eachindividual subject area. Different subjects and different methods of assessment may make differentdemands on candidates.

9. A candidate's disability may be such that it is not possible for him or her to participate in aparticular mode of assessment (an aural examination for a candidate with severe hearingimpairment), in which case it should be open to the candidate to apply for exemption from part ofthe assessment procedure.

10. Where it is not possible for a candidate to participate in a particular mode of assessment, analternative assessment procedure may be specified.

11. An alternative procedure is not acceptable where the purpose of an examination would becompromised by its use (e.g., reading a test of reading comprehension to a candidate with a specificreading difficulty).

12. When an element or elements of an examination have been waived, so that the purpose of theexamination regarding that element or elements has not been met, or the method of examining has beensignificantly altered, this should be indicated by the presence of an explanatory note on the candidate'scertificate of results.

13. Circumstances that may affect a candidate's performance (e.g., illness, trauma, bereavement) should,insofar as is possible, be addressed during the examination period.


15


2.4 Accommodations

The Scheme of Reasonable Accommodations operated by the State Examinations Commission provides fora range of accommodations for candidates with particular needs.

These include, for example:

• The provision of a test item in alternative format • Modifications to a test item• Exemptions and waivers from elements of an examination• The provision of a reader• The provision of a scribe• The provision of a tape recorder• Accommodations in examination settings

The accommodations are intended to facilitate access to the examinations for candidates who havephysical/sensory and or specific learning difficulties.

2.5 Outline of the application process

There is a fundamental difference in the application process at Junior Certificate and at Leaving Certificate.In both cases, applications for reasonable accommodations are submitted by a candidate's school onprescribed application forms. However, one of the key features of the application process at JuniorCertificate is the devolution to schools of a significant degree of autonomy in identifying candidates with adisability or additional support needs in the examination setting. Approval of an accommodation at JuniorCertificate does not assure approval at Leaving Certificate.

The SEC operates a different application process in respect of the Leaving Certificate. In the case of aLeaving Certificate candidate, as with a Junior Certificate candidate, applications for reasonableaccommodations are submitted by the school which the candidate attends on prescribed application forms.Applications for reasonable accommodations on the grounds of a physical difficulty are considered by theSEC on the basis of the supporting medical evidence provided. All applications for reasonableaccommodations on grounds of a specific learning difficulty are referred to a psychologist from the NationalEducational Psychological Services (NEPS). All documentation in relation to each application, including allprofessional psychological assessments, samples of a candidate's hand writing, and any other appropriatematerial are made available to the NEP's Psychologist for evaluation as part of the decision-making process.

In all cases, there is provision for appeal by the candidate to an Appeals Board which is independent of theState Examinations Commission.

2.6 Applications for Reasonable Accommodations

One of the most striking features of the current scheme is the level of increase in applications andaccommodations granted in recent years.

The areas of significant growth within the scheme are the spelling and grammar waiver, special centres, andto a lesser extent, readers and scribes.

The increase in individual accommodations granted under the various headings between 2001 and 2007 isillustrated by the tables overleaf.


16


Table 1 - Leaving Certificate 2001 - 2007This table illustrates the large increase in accommodations under the spelling and grammar waiver, readerand scribe categories.

Type of Accommodation

Tape Recorder (Learning)Tape Recorder (Physical)Reading AssistanceScribeWord ProcessorEnlarged Question PapersBraille Question PapersExemption from Aural TestsExemption from Oral TestsExemption from Practical TestsModified Papers (Visual)Spelling/Grammar Waiver

2001

90

10624231121409264

2002

214

2807237483106011456

2003

14649353704542212905684

2004

14871488105673641523011972

2005

194526561357943511120131396

2006

18158736192863141110061458

2007

1944996720413530112160101841


Tape Recorder (Learning)Tape Recorder (Physical)Reading AssistanceScribeWord ProcessorEnlarged Question PapersBraille Question PapersExemption from Aural TestsExemption from Oral TestsExemption from Practical TestsModified Papers (Visual)Spelling/Grammar Waiver

2001

415

7467050437120518976

2002

481

1084101624621904131489

2003

567671431153685181904162077

2004

582109180823975485308132630

2005

606912356245903821504143367

2006

5559227693451385341305213992

2007

580723,10144717745011012184378

Table 3 - Leaving Certificate Applied (LCA) 2003 - 2007 (Year 1 and Year 2)The accommodations of reader and whole subject exemption are noteworthy in the Leaving CertificateApplied programme. Consideration may be required as to the impact of the whole subject exemption on theintegrity of the LCA programme.


Tape Recorder (Learning)Tape Recorder (Physical)Reading AssistanceScribeWord ProcessorEnlarged Question PapersModified Papers (Visual)Oral ExemptionAural ExemptionWhole Subject exemption

2003

71715418530000

2004

78102563958110537

2005

9373454867251640

2006

57372131714072949

2007

106537448218101121394

Table 2 - Junior Certificate 2001 - 2007The application process for accommodations is largely devolved to schools at Junior Certificate level. Theincrease in spelling and grammar waivers, readers and scribes at Junior Certificate is illustrated by thefollowing table:


17


Table 4- Special Centres 2001 - 2007The significant growth in the number of special centres is also a notable feature of the current scheme. Therewere 6752 special centres in 2007, while there were some 4500 regular centres. In the case of someindividual schools where there were one or more regular centres, the number of reasonable accommodationsgranted required the provision of multiple special centres. A number of schools had more than 10 specialcentres and the Advisory Group notes that in one school in 2007, more than 25 special centres had to beprovided.

Year

Number of Special Centres

2001

1776

2002

2400

2003

3088

2004

3852

2005

4710

2006

5589

2007

6752


19


CHAPTER 3

Analysis of submissions and meetings

As part of the consultative process, the Advisory Group met with the National Council for Curriculum andAssessment (NCCA) and with the National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS). A meeting was alsoheld with the Chief Executive of the National Council for Special Education (NCSE). A broad range of issueswas discussed at these meetings. These included, for example, the nature and operation of the currentscheme, the role of the statutory agencies, eligibility issues, equality and inclusion issues, curriculumdevelopments, legal issues, and possible future developments in the scheme.

Invitations for submissions to the Advisory Group were published in the national media in April 2007. A totalof 42 submissions were received - 22 of these were from organisations and groups and 20 were receivedfrom individuals. This chapter outlines the content of the submissions received. To preserve their anonymity,the submissions are referred to by a code number, and the pronoun “it” is used instead of “he” or “she” or“they”.

A small number of submissions referred to single issues only, while the majority raised a number of issues.It was felt that an analysis and categorisation of the submissions on a thematic basis would best facilitatefurther discussion and debate. Some submissions made reference to issues that were outside the Terms ofReference of the Advisory Group. For example, issues with implications for examination systems in general,such as the use of continuous assessment or more extensive assessment of coursework, are not within theAdvisory Group's Terms of Reference.

The submissions may be categorised into four main areas as follows::• Administrative issues• Eligibility issues• Specific accommodations• Trauma and Adversity/repeat examinations.

3.1 Administrative issues

3.1.1 Application forms

S14 believed that the application form should be simplified. It also suggested that one form should cover theDES, the CAO and other 3rd level institutions. S10 believed that the application form at Junior Certificateneeded to be amended to include a provision for Reader/Interpreter. S35 suggested that the applications donot provide sufficient advice in relation to clear guidelines for the identification of students who might requireRACE.

3.1.2 Application procedure

S19 suggested a number of areas in which the administration of the scheme could be improved.

These included the following:

• Greater clarity regarding the person responsible for making the application. Is it the school, the visitingteacher or the individual?

• Greater clarity regarding the criteria for eligibility would be helpful• More information concerning what accommodations are possible• Further development of the application form to include, for example, adaptive software.

S26 commented that, based on research undertaken, 'the application system for reasonableaccommodations for the Leaving Certificate is confusing and requires parents to negotiate many differentlevels of complexity in order to secure accommodations'. It further suggested that 'the system and itsassociated administrative and procedural elements is an extremely complex architecture of validations,confirmations, certifications and approvals'.


20


S26 also suggested that 'the process is not transparent to parents and the process of application presentsso many barriers that it undermines the eligibility of children to supports'. S29 proposed 'clear guidelinesoutlined for students and parents concerning exam situation before the exam'.

S26 also wrote that 'it is vital that this review ensures…that the system of application for reasonableaccommodations is more transparent and as user-friendly as possible (or not unnecessarily complicated)'.

S40 asked if the application process 'could be advanced to the end of April for closing date or delayed untilend of September?' S35 suggested that schools should be encouraged to engage in the process ofsubmitting applications for RACE early in the school year in order to ensure sufficient time for additionaldocumentation to be provided, where necessary, and for appeals to be dealt with.

S38 believed that more information is required for parents, candidates and schools on the applicationprocedure, the available accommodations and the eligibility requirements.

3.1.3 Notification of decisions

S3 felt that decisions on RA should be in place by the end of 5th Year. It felt that it was unfair for candidatesto be informed that their application was refused in the months before the examination. S7 agreed that thetiming of the communication of appeals on RA applications was too late. In the case cited, the decision onthe appeal was not communicated to the appellant until April before the Leaving Certificate.

S9 suggested that whatever accommodations are to be granted should be notified as early as possible. S17agreed - 'there is no fixed date for receiving notification on whether reasonable accommodations have beengranted or not, which leave students not knowing whether to practice answering question in the 'usual' way,or as though they have been granted the reasonable accommodations'. S17 suggested that 'the sooner acandidate is notified regarding the status of the application, the better'. In this context, S23 suggested that'it could be argued that decisions relating to reasonable accommodations should be made a full year inadvance of the examination to which they refer, so that students can be properly prepared to avail of suchaccommodation'. This view was shared by S38 who believed that candidates availing of accommodationsshould get to know the person before the examination and have opportunity to practice in advance.

S25 believed that the time it takes from application for reasonable accommodations to the decision on whataccommodations are allocated 'is unreasonably long, especially if students appeal the decision as they maynot know the outcome of the appeal until a very short period before the exam'.

3.1.4 Appeals procedure

S9 felt that there should be a complaints committee with procedures in place. S20 stated that 'in the eventthat an agreed accommodation is not acceptable to the student, appropriate accessible options to appealshould be put in place both within the school and in the Department of Education'.

3.1.5 Information and Guidelines

S24 proposed that more information should be available to parents with regard to the provisions of thescheme and what accommodations were available. S38 was in agreement with this.

S10 requested that previous examinations in aurals and orals should be transcribed and made available.

S37 felt that there was a lack of clarity on the part of schools with regard to what constitutes reasonableaccommodation in the case of students with epilepsy and that this 'has led to some schools showing initialreluctance to supporting the student's application'.

S20 proposed that Guidelines should be issued to every person participating in the provision of ReasonableAccommodations to students with disabilities. S23 also proposed that 'the guidelines for schools,superintendents, readers, scribes and other personnel involved in the provision of reasonableaccommodation should be revisited'. S10 also proposed that guidelines should be provided toSuperintendents and examiners on best practice in communicating with hearing impaired candidates. Thistheme is also supported by S20 who suggested that 'guidelines should exist to guide the role of every personparticipating in the provision of reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities'.


21


S22 proposed that there was a need to clarify the role of the Special Needs Assistant during the certificateexaminations, particularly in relation to the issue of SNAs acting as Superintendents in Special Centres.

S20 suggested that guidelines for a reader 'would require that a person provided to read for a student duringan exam was not also an invigilator'. Similarly, in the case of scribes, guidelines would outline the precisenature of the role.

S26 suggested that the language in the current SEC guidelines is 'very negative and suggests that thestudent could be getting an advantage'. A number of revisions to wording in the current documentation aresuggested in this submission.

3.1.6 Training

S20 proposed that disability awareness training should be provided to invigilators or others providingsupports to a student 'so that they are aware of the needs of students with disabilities and are prepared totake suitable steps to assist should it be required'. S23 also proposed that 'appropriate training procedures…be put in place to ensure consistency throughout all centres'.

S39 suggested that training was required for private psychologists in the procedures and guidelines of theReasonable Accommodations scheme.

3.1.7 Logistical issues

S19 suggested that the deployment of a designated person within the school would greatly assist on the dayof the examination and that there could be greater co-ordination between the SEC and relevant groups.Occasionally, 'an issue arises where what has been requested and granted does not materialise on the dayof the actual examination'.

S26 suggested that 'parents are concerned that requested accommodations are delivered on time as thereappear to be many logistical errors with the transfer and collection of examination papers'

3.1.8 Role of the Examinations Aide

S30 suggested that it was 'unfair' to expect the Examinations Aide to undertake the large range of dutiescurrently undertaken. It suggested that the main role and responsibility of the Examinations Aide should befor the main examinations centres and additional aides should be appointed on a pro-rata basis. It proposedthat a centre with 10-20 additional special centres should be entitled to an additional Aide, with an additionalAssistant for every additional five centres.

S30 suggested that the role of the Examinations Aide should also be reviewed. S41 agreed that the role ofthe Examinations Aide (Secretary) and the increase in workload arising from RA should be reviewed.

3.2 Eligibility issues

3.2.1 General

S8 suggested that 'accommodations at 3rd level are easier to access than the system currently employedby the SEC'.

S20 suggested that the focus of RA and the proposed solutions needed to keep the individual candidate atthe centre. The general issue of inclusion is critical to the concept of Reasonable Accommodations in thecertificate examinations. It stated:

The implementation of such recent legislation as the EPSEN Act 2004 and the Disability Act 2005 will makethis an issue of increasing importance as more people with disabilities are supported to progress throughthe mainstream school system. It is incumbent on the system to enable as many students as possible to attainformal accreditation at post-primary level.

S20 also suggested that flexible person-centred solutions were required and that solutions 'cannot be


22


prescriptive but must be based on the needs of the individual'.

S26 suggested that reasonable accommodations are different for each individual student, even students withthe same disability. This theme was also supported by a number of respondents, including S27 whocommented that 'every student with a disability has different needs'

3.2.2 Eligibility model

S22 asked, in relation to reading and writing accommodations, 'does giving these provisions only to studentswho have specific learning difficulties rather than borderline or mild general learning difficulties mean thatthose of lesser intellectual ability, as demonstrated by psychological assessments, are doomed to achievingwhat they can on their own?'.

In relation to the provision of accommodations to students who have specific learning difficulties, S22suggested that 'the crude measurement of attainment on reading and spelling of isolated words, with thesame cut off point for all, seems unfair'. It suggested that it may be more appropriate to develop a system ofdetermining eligibility for accommodations 'that is based on discrepancy…rather than having the same cut-off attainment scores for all'.

S35 noted the 'wide definition of special educational needs in the EPSEN Act 2004'.

S10 suggested that 'independent evidence of a disability (e.g. Audiogram) be considered in terms of thecandidate's overall educational needs…for example, some moderately hearing-impaired may function at asevere level or visa versa'

Eligibility for accommodations needs to be revisited in the context of the EPSEN Act 2004, according to S23,who suggested that 'arrangements should be made to include students with syndrome-related disabilities(e.g. autism, Asperger syndrome etc.) and students with emotional and behavioural disabilities'.

S25 wondered why it was 'that students who are above-average or gifted are unable to receive anyaccommodations as they are not able to indicate their potential as their ability compensates so that they fallabove the criteria for accommodations?'.

S25 suggested that the area of Reading Comprehension was one that required further consideration by theAdvisory Group.

S35 stated that the most enduring concern of teachers relates to the assessment of students' needs andwrote that 'schools have yet to be issued with clear guidelines for the identification of students who mightrequire RACE'. It stated (S35)

The reality is that schools do not have adequate allocations of specialist teaching personnel vizLearning Support Teachers, Resource Teachers and Guidance Counsellors - who are capable of testingand assessing students' needs. This problem is greatly exacerbated by the difficulties in accessing theassessment services of NEPS…The lack of standardised assessment criteria for RACE and the poorcapacity of schools to provide assessment raises serious questions in relation to the equity in the currentsystem.

S35 also referred to an issue of equity arising in relation to 'those students who do not demonstrate evidenceof a discrepancy score between measures of their ability level and their achievement level but who,nonetheless, appear to have the same kind of cognitive difficulties as those who demonstrate a highdiscrepancy score'.

S35 noted that 'at school level, a view is emerging that some newcomer students should also be entitled toreasonable accommodations in their examinations on the basis of the entire examination being conductedin a language which is not their own'.

3.2.3 Processing of applications at Junior Certificate

S17 questioned the difference in process between Junior and Leaving Certificate, noting that the candidate'is still dyslexic' at Leaving Certificate and 'still needs these reasonable accommodations in order todemonstrate his level of attainment in his certificate examinations'.


24


S30 commented that Principals have some reservations about the different models at Junior and LeavingCertificate and 'where they consider that some students could cope without any special accommodation atJunior Certificate level, they feel obliged to make the request because of the possible negative effects at alater stage'. S30 also commented that 'there is a level of concern that private psychologists may makerecommendations for reasonable accommodations during the Leaving Certificate year and that there maybe an element of abuse of the system where this is arising'.

S12 believed that there is a need for more straightforward guidelines regarding eligibility foraccommodations at Junior Certificate. While she accepts that not everything can be legislated for,'increasing pressure from parents to grant the accommodation is placing quite an onus on teachers andschool authorities'.

S39 felt that the applications for Reasonable Accommodations should be assessed at Junior Certificatestage and not Leaving Certificate stage. It suggested that the model 'could then be devolved to schools forthe Leaving Certificate examinations' and believed that the guidelines were not being fully adhered to byschools 'due either to pressure from parents or a lack of knowledge in schools about the application of DATs,CATs etc'.

3.2.4 Processing of applications at Leaving Certificate

S26 recommended that 'a consistent approach to verification of disability is taken at different levels of theeducation system, or at least that one level of the system is informed by the demands and requirements ofthe next level'. This view was shared by S27, who advocated a 'consistency of approach, irrespective of theirgeographical location or school, in the assessing and granting of reasonable accommodations'.

S35 proposed that 'adequate assessment procedures should be conducted well in advance of theexaminations and the application process for RACE'.

S7 questioned 'why the recommendations of the expert private psychologists are not accepted? Why wereaccommodations granted for Junior Certificate and refused for Leaving Certificate?'

3.2.5 Role of school personnel

S20 proposed a simpler application procedure 'which recognises non-written applications (i.e. alternativeformats) and which takes into consideration existing assessments will make access to reasonableaccommodations far simpler'. Wherever possible, 'the student's teacher should be relied upon to identify thesupports required'.

S23 suggested that a template to assist schools in the early identification of students who might requireaccommodations would be helpful.

S23 proposed that consideration should be given 'to an enhanced role for school personnel in theassessment of need for reasonable accommodation at Leaving Certificate, as is currently the practice atJunior Certificate'. This view was shared by S33 who suggested that 'teachers and school principals are bestplaced to recognise and make decisions regarding accommodation needs in consultation with students andparents'.

S41 also raised the issue of attendants and believed that explicit information should be provided in relationto the employment of attendants in special centres.

S40 suggested that 'some recognition should be made regarding the workload someone has to do inpreparing the applications (usually the Learning Support Teacher), and subsequently following up withletters advising parents of the outcome of the applications etc.'

S41 believed that the payment rates for Superintendents should be reviewed in the light of the 'specialrequirements' involved.

S20 suggested that Guidelines should 'allow a level of autonomy to each individual examinationcentre/school to decide which accommodations should be provided to their students to support them to takepart in the exam as local knowledge will ensure that supports will be accessed only when appropriate andas required'.


24


3.2.6 Role of private psychological assessments

S17 noted that assessments were expensive and this 'can be prohibitive for some families'. S18 alsosuggested that the cost of assessments can be prohibitive and noted the limited availability of NEPS in someschools. S26 commented that 'there is a very real difficulty created by the apparent shortage of NEPSpsychologists which leaves many students with SLD without the full psychological assessment they requirefor verification of disability at third level, which in turn means they are not eligible to apply for supports'.

S25 noted that it is possible that the 'the reasonable accommodations recommended by psychologists donot fall within the guidelines stipulated by the State Examinations Commission'. She also felt that NEPS maymake decisions 'based on a limited period of testing, which disregard previous educational assessmentsand diagnoses.

S35 suggested that 'there is widespread anecdotal evidence that parents who can afford to commissionprivate educational or psychological assessments for their children can subsequently secure RACEprovision which, teachers claim, gives them an unfair advantage over other students'. It noted that the 2000Report made the point that evidence of discrepancy between ability and achievement level 'is notnecessarily due to a disability or specific learning difficulty but, rather, a result of poor motivation or failureto study'.

S39 believed that while NEPS state that psychologists on the Department of Education and Science websiteare members of their professional association and have experience in the individual assessment of children,'it appears that there is no training given to these psychologists who are essentially doing the exact samework as the NEPS psychologist'. It (S39) suggested that:

…they are often unaware of the criteria used in the assessment of reasonable accommodations and theygive suggestions which are unrealistic and not feasible under the current scheme. They create unrealisticexpectations as to what accommodations a candidate is entitled to in the certificate examinations.

S39 further suggested training for these psychologists or alternatively the recruitment of additional NEPSpsychologists.

3.2.7 Role of NEPS

S33 welcomed the involvement of NEPS at Leaving Certificate. However, S25 proposed that a more formalprocess in relation to Junior Certificate applications 'would provide consistency for students and diminish theconcerns around the allocation of reasonable accommodations in the run up to Leaving Certificate. SEN staffwould have a longer period within which to prepare students for the state examinations, taking intoconsideration the allocated accommodations from Junior Certificate'.

3.2.8 Candidates 'normal way of working'

S3 felt that schools should receive supports for accommodations during mock examinations.

S23 commented that if reasonable accommodation arrangements were to be effective and of benefit tostudents 'they must have the opportunity to familiarise themselves with these arrangements both in theirclassroom experiences and in the conduct of school exams and tests'. It suggested that this required theprovision of 'appropriate resources in equipment, in manpower and in the training of those who will undertakethis task'. On the same theme, S24 suggested that students taking in-house school examinations shouldreceive the same accommodations as in the state examinations.

S9 suggested that training should be provided to candidates in the use of a tape recorder or scribe. It alsofelt that schools needed to work with candidates in working with the accommodations throughout the year.

S20 suggested that 'all accommodations should be agreed in consultation with the student and should betested to ensure that they are effective on the day'. This theme was also adopted by S27 who suggested that'students availing of a scribe should be provided with plenty of opportunity to practice with their scribebefore the time of the state examinations, and, if possible, to have conducted their preliminary examinationswith the use of this scribe'.

S28 believed that candidates who are eligible for reasonable accommodations should be given 'plenty ofopportunities to practice whichever medium they are going to use in their in-house examinations and that


25


measures are put in place in schools to facilitate this'.

S27 suggested that students should be given time prior to an examination 'to familiarise themselves with anyequipment they will be using on the day of the examination'.

3.3 Specific accommodations

3.3.1 Provision of alternative versions of the test instrument

Enlarged versionsS39 suggested that visually impaired candidates should be given the enlarged paper in enlarged font andnot the same font as other candidates. He also suggested that these candidates be provided with theexamination on CD and they could then 'enlarge the question paper to whatever font suits them usingtechnology'.

ReaderIn relation to readers, S34 proposed that a page explaining 'difficult' words accompany the examinationpaper and that 'if the student does not understand a particular word then it may be possible for the readerto read an explanation of the word and thus ensure that the student understands the question being askedof them'.

S10 felt that the use of modified examination scripts should be explored 'for hearing-impaired students whodo not wish to avail of a Reader/Interpreter'. It also felt that all current accommodations should be continued.

S39 suggested that instead of readers, candidates should be provided with a copy of the question paper onCD so that 'they have total control of the question being read to them'. It believed that an advantage is thatthe candidates could replay the question as many time as they wish. In addition, in terms of protecting theintegrity of the examination, 'there is no elaboration of words given'. However, S38 suggested that 'in thecase of ADD/ADDH students because of the difficulties of comprehension they may have, reasonableaccommodations need to require a reader/scribe to not only read out and write answers to questions but toensure the student actually fully comprehends the questions being asked'.

Electronic versionsS4 proposed greater use of IT in examination delivery, including the provision of electronic versions ofexaminations for candidates who require them. S8 also suggested that examination test items should beavailable on tape. See also section 3.3.4 below.

Irish Sign LanguageS21 believed that the use of Irish Sign Language should be available as a communication medium forcandidates and that the seating arrangements should facilitate candidates who are deaf or hard of hearing.

3.3.2 Exemptions / waivers

Exemption from aural componentS21 suggested that the exemption from oral/aural components for deaf and hard of hearing students shouldbe continued.

Spelling and grammar waiverS22 suggested that the 'spelling/grammar waiver and/or automatic use of word processing facilities withassociated tools should be extended to all subjects, especially at Leaving Certificate'.

S39 believed that where candidates are using a scribe or a tape recorder to answer their questions, 'theyshould spell out the words in language subjects where grammar and language (spelling?) are essential tothe language'. It suggested that candidates should be given additional time to allow for the fact that theyneed to spell particular words.

Annotation of certificatesS6 suggested that there should be no annotation of certificates regarding accommodations granted `'as itcould lead to discrimination'. It stated that annotation 'would be acceptable in the case of English where aspell-checker or scribe was used'.


26


S8 suggested that annotation was unfair as 'it gives with one hand and takes away with the other'. Thesubmission further stated 'the reason for granting reasonable accommodation is to remove the disadvantagethe student suffers, not to impose a further disability by marking the student as different and sub-standard'.It pointed out that annotation did not occur at 3rd level.

S8 also suggested that the current system of annotation could be misleading as it could convey theimpression that the candidate 'was unable to read or unable to spell.'

S10 requested the removal of the 'explanatory note' on examination certificates for hearing impairedstudents.

S14, S15 and S16 believed that annotation of certificates was discriminatory and should be discontinued.S17 asked 'are the Junior and Leaving certificate examinations reading and writing tests or tests ofknowledge?' It also asked 'if the student has the knowledge, does it matter how he/she demonstrates it?' S17noted that one of the principles of the Reasonable Accommodations scheme was that arrangements shouldnot give the candidate for whom they are made an advantage over other candidates. 'If the arrangementsare not giving them an advantage, why is there an explanatory note on their certificate of results? 'S17 notedthat there was no annotation of degrees at 3rd level.

S33 recommended the removal of annotations as 'this can be construed as highlighting a disability and thuslead to discriminatory practices'.

S17 suggested that if annotation was to remain in place, then annotation should also be provided in the caseof candidates availing of the bonus for answering through Irish.

S18 also disagreed with the concept of annotation and suggested that it gives rise to a '2nd class certificate'.S20 noted that annotation 'could negatively affect the perceptions that future employers or educationalinstitutions have in relation to that person'. It further stated that annotation 'will not only highlight a person'sdisability but will also suggest that they are incapable of performing at the same level as others'.

S22 believed that placing asterisks and explanations on certificates means that 'accommodation is givenwith one hand and its benefits potentially taken away with the other'. It suggested that the placing of asterisks'indicates that the certificate is lesser or at least different to one without same'. This view was shared by S31who stated that 'the object of the accommodation is to remove the disadvantage the student suffers'.

S23, however, expressed the view that:

the integrity and credibility of examination results must be fully preserved in the interest of all pupilsincluding those with special educational needs. For this reason, we believe that certificates of results shouldgive a full picture of both the attainment and the limitations of the student. A careful study is required of themeans by which this may be accomplished.

S27 suggested that annotation of results should be removed as 'if alternative assessment mechanisms havebeen identified, then there is no need to treat students differently'. S28 also believed that annotation shouldbe discontinued 'as the accommodations are supposed to level the playing field and allow the student showhis/her capabilities not highlight their disability'.

S30 concurred with Principle 12 of the Framework of Principles proposed by the Expert Group in 2000 inrelation to the annotation of certificates 'where an element of elements of an examination have been waived,so that the purpose of the examinations regarding that element or elements has not been met, or the methodof examining has been significantly altered'.

S38 stated that 'the actual noting on the students' certificate is contrary to the principles set out by the ExpertGroup and submit that this practice should be discontinued'.

3.3.3 Variations in examination setting

Special centresS2 noted that the increase in special centres has created significant issues for many schools. These include'procuring sufficient readers for candidates granted this accommodation, getting Garda clearance andfinding sufficient physical space in the school'. Concern was also expressed at the additional administrativeburden on Principals. S30 echoed this theme, stating that the increases in the number of special centres


27


'poses a number of practical difficulties at school level'. It also stated that it is 'becoming increasingly difficultto find the extra number of supervisors required'. It suggested that anecdotal evidence indicates 'that thelow level of payment involved does not make this attractive'. S30 commented that 'the role of the Principaland Deputy-Principal in the organisation of special centres in all its aspects must be reviewed'.

S41 noted the large increase in special centres and suggested that this was likely to increase given theeducation of students with special educational needs in mainstream schools. It expressed concern atpotential health and safety issues and the possibility of superintendents being exposed to allegations ofimpropriety in these circumstances - 'the relative isolation of superintendents of special centres, especiallyin the context of health and safety, critical incidents, the very significant number of special centres in someschools and the susceptibility of superintendents of special centres to allegations of impropriety are ofconcern'.

S22 suggested that the provision of access to readers and separate centres 'warrants review'. It noted thatwhile, for some candidates, a separate centre is essential, 'there are many who could be accommodated ingroups that are smaller than the main centres'. It suggested that if 'talking text could be created forexamination papers, where highlighted sections could be read on command, students could beaccommodated in groups with computers and headphones'.

S9 felt that the examination room conditions should be appropriate and that small digital recorders arepreferable to older larger models. It suggested that the recording could be downloaded onto a memory stickwith the candidate's name and number.

However, S30 noted that 'it is becoming increasingly impossible to provide individual centres if there is alarge number of students requiring them in February/March'. It noted that 'class is continuing for all non-examination students and the physical geography of schools makes it impossible to find the space requiredor the supervisors'.

S16 felt that taking the examination in a smaller room with 4-6 candidates was very helpful at 3rd level.

S20 suggested that the physical environment of the examination centre should include an Induction Loopand facilities for guide dogs.

S37 commented that while special centres are available for candidates with epilepsy, 'there remain graveconcerns about the lack of a flexible mechanism to accommodate their needs'.

Additional timeS1 felt that this was the most critical issue for candidates with dyslexia. S14 suggested that the issue of timein the examinations should form part of the review of RA. This view was shared by S23 who stated that 'thereis already some concern about the length of time which is required of all students in the course of theexaminations - as much as 6.5 hours on some days'. It suggested that 'this matter should be examined indetail during the course of the review'.

S25 suggested that extra time in the examinations 'should be an option available for SEN students withspecific learning difficulties'. In relation to the pilot project (20 minutes additional time), it suggested thatstudents are put in an unfavourable position in English, Irish, Geography and History in comparison to thegeneral allocation of additional time'.

S26 noted that timed assessments can be a source of anxiety to candidates with dyslexia, as a candidatemay take considerably longer to read text.

S16 felt that time should be available for candidates who do not require scribes but who have slowerprocessing speed in reading and writing. In this regard, it suggested that, rather than full length essays,'shorter perhaps bulleted point responses might be accepted by examiners for candidates in this category'.

S21 believed that additional examination time should be available 'to reflect the extra time required forinterpretation, lip-reading etc' for deaf and hard of hearing candidates.

S18 felt that there was reluctance on the part of the SEC to grant additional time as an accommodation andthat this was a cause of stress to the candidates involved. S20 suggested that a 10-minute extension to theperiod of the examination was too prescriptive - 'a person with dyspraxia or using complex technology mayrequire a longer period of time to accommodate their needs'.


28


S22 commented that while there needs to be some reasonable time constraint in examinations, the additionaltime allocation to all students on a pilot basis 'does not seem to level the ground for those with difficulties asother students can also use this time to enhance their written performance'. In this regard, it notes that 'inmost higher education/employment situations, successful completion of tasks in a reasonable, rather thanspecific, timeframe is acceptable'. S27 suggested that 'more time should be considered for subjects whichare mathematics based, as these can prove exceptionally tedious to a blind or visually impaired student'.

S35 noted that Circular S11/2000 provides for the provision of extra time in four subjects. It suggested that'there is for some time a strongly held view among teachers that this measure in fact confers an advantageon students who do not have special educational needs and who tend to be in the higher achievementgroups'. S35 'strongly recommends that this measure be discontinued'. This view was shared by S41 whobelieved that this measure 'confers benefit primarily on the most able academically and does not achieve itsintended aim of facilitating completion of these examinations by students availing of reasonableaccommodations…its general effect is to exacerbate rather than mitigate inequity'. It strongly recommendedthat 'the provision be discontinued except for students with special needs'.

S39 believed that the timetable should be re-examined from the point of view of candidates being grantedreasonable accommodations. It believed that 'often it is these candidates who need a longer rest break'.

S37 stated that there is concern that in the case of epilepsy, medication and sub clinical seizures 'cancritically interfere with concentration, memory and components of learning'.

3.3.4 Variations in the medium used

Word processorsIn relation to candidates with Asperger Syndrome, S22 believed that it would be appropriate to considerthem eligible for accommodations in writing 'even if their degree of difficulty with this is not as severe asothers with specific writing difficulties'. Preventing the use of word processors or other accommodations'seems an unnecessary barrier'. S8 suggested that the use of a word processor as an accommodationshould be commonplace and that, when available in tandem with tape versions of examinations, wouldsignificantly reduce the need for readers.

S22 proposed that word processors should be available for all who request them.

Tape recordersS27 suggested that the 'use of tape recorders in written examinations should be discouraged…the use of ascribe, who will re-read written material to the student, is far more likely to assist the student in exercisingliteracy in what is, after all, a written examination'.

AssistantsS5 referred to candidates with Asperger Syndrome (AS) who 'tend to have a preference for structure,perfection and an inability to operate well in noisy or over-crowded places'. It was suggested that a guidesuch as a SNA could bring the candidate to a quiet room before the examination to avoid a build up of stress.

Technology/Adaptive technologyS20 proposed that the opportunities offered by available technology be harnessed in the case ofReasonable Accommodations. It suggested that 'the key to the provision of reasonable accommodations incertificate examinations is to use all of the technological facilities in an imaginative way to overcome theobstacles that people face'. This view was shared by S21 who suggested that assistive technology shouldbe utilised to facilitate the deaf and hard of hearing candidate. S26 also commented on the use of technologyin reasonable accommodations and recommended that the Advisory Group examines 'how assistivetechnology is used to ensure equality of learning and assessment experience for many students withdisabilities; in particular, students with specific learning difficulties and students who are blind or visuallyimpaired'.

The theme of assistive technology was also adopted by S27, who suggested that 'a key recommendation ofthe Advisory Group should be the maximisation of IT (Information technology) and AT (Assistive Technology)in both the learning and examination environment for all learners with disabilities'. This, it suggested, 'will fullyprepare students for life in further study and employment'.


29


3.4 Trauma and Adversity

S18 felt that there appeared to be very little available to students who experience illness, injury orbereavement at exam time. It suggested that 'surely in this day and age, there should be the possibility ofthe limited number involved sitting their exams in July, even in a limited number of centres'.

S39 felt that provision should be made for candidates to sit examinations at a later date due to bereavement,illness or hospitalisation. It did not envisage repeat examinations for candidates 'who felt they didn't performwell on their first examination and want a second bite of the cherry!'

S36 noted that the current system 'does not cater for the child who is suddenly taken ill and cannot sit theexamination on the scheduled day'. It suggested that a candidate 'had the right to sit the examinations whichwere the culmination of three years work'. It also questioned whether examiners should be made aware ofthe circumstances such as a candidate sitting an examination directly following release from hospital in theprevious few hours. It (S36) proposed that repeat examinations should be available for candidates in thesesituations.

3.5 Suitability of the current assessment model

It should be noted that submissions on the appropriateness or otherwise of the current assessment modelare not within the Terms of Reference of the Advisory Group. Notwithstanding this, the following submissionsrelated to this theme:

S4 suggested that under the current arrangements, examinations 'are not sufficiently flexible in some casesto allow candidates to demonstrate their abilities'. S31 shared this view, stating that 'terminal hand-written,essay-type, timed examinations are totally unsuited for Dyslexic children'. It suggested that specialaccommodations 'help minimise this disadvantage'.

S4 suggested that the use of question banks and the generation of individual examinations for eachcandidate would enable more candidates to take the examinations with less support. It was also suggestedthat IT-based delivery would make the examinations more flexible and would make the element of time lesscritical.

S5 suggested that 'more structured examination questions would assist candidates with AspergerSyndrome'.

S8 suggested that a 'dyslexia friendly' format of examinations would involve 'continuous assessment, projectwork which counts towards final marks and coursework which can be completed on a yearly basis'.

S20 suggested that the Advisory Group should look at organisations that have adopted an innovativeresponse to providing for diverse learning needs. As an example, it cited FETAC which 'rewards differentlearning styles by accepting diverse evidence of ability from examinations, to the maintenance of a learningjournal, to the development of a video diary'.

Regarding modified papers, S23 suggested that 'those responsible for the setting of examination papers beasked to examine the degree to which tests might be made 'disability-proof' and proposed that a Code ofPractice to be followed in the preparation of tests should be considered.

S26 commented

The standardised test systems such as the Leaving Certificate were not designed to meet the needs ofstudents with disability and exclude many candidates with disabilities. The greatest challenge is to go backto the drawing board and design a broader system of assessment methods that would meet the needs ofall students including students with disabilities. In the meantime, it is vital to ensure that examinationpolicies recognise that they are inadequate as an assessment tool for many disabled students to demonstratetheir abilities.

S26 recommended a 'move away from standardised tests towards a system of universal design that includesthe assessment needs of candidates with disabilities and respects their right to reach their potential likeevery other student'. In relation to the development of test items in general, S26, citing the Singleton Reporton Dyslexia in the UK, wrote:


30


The first step in addressing the problem of examination provision for students with dyslexia is not theconsideration of the examination, nor of the student, but of the course itself. Having clear course aims andobjectives helps to clarify what methods of examination and assessment would be most appropriate.

S26 recommended that the Advisory Group should ensure that 'a broad range of alternative assessmentmethods are built into policy on reasonable accommodations and are available to students with disabilities'.

With regard to processing speed, S20 suggested that

… it is not generally understood people process information in diverse ways… ensuring that person issupported to take part in a written examination often does not demonstrate an individual's knowledgeof a subject but rather tests the individual's skills in English

This means that consideration must also be given to developing new methods of examination which value thevery different learning styles of each student in the secondary education system'.

S20 further suggested that it was essential 'that the Advisory Group proposes a reconsideration of what isbeing examined'.

S38 wrote that

I f the competence standard has an adverse impact on the student…the fol lowing should beconsidered: whether the application of the standard is absolutely necessary; could the competence beapplied in another way that does not have an adverse effect on the student?

3.6 General

3.6.1 Status of the State Examinations

S35 cited the Expert Group report and the NCCA Discussion Paper on Senior Cycle (2002) in relation to 'thesocietal consensus on the need to retain the fairness, credibility and currency of the examination'

S22 noted that the reasonable accommodations currently available 'have greatly increased the access tosuch examinations'. It also suggested that 'these accommodations by their very existence, set a standard ofinclusivity for schools as well as decreasing the impact of disability / difference / injury on performance ofindividuals'. S30 noted the 'very positive partnership that exists between schools and the SEC'. It stated that'the SEC is most supportive of any individual student who may, for reasons foreseen or otherwise, requireany measure of accommodation during the certificate examinations'.

S33 believed that the current arrangements were 'fair and equitable'.

S15 outlined that a student with dyslexia made significant progress when given accommodations and theassistance of a resource teacher. It believed that all reasonable accommodations should be available andsuggested that these do not confer advantage 'as there already exists a significant disadvantage'.

On a general theme, S20 suggested that 'all accommodations must be designed to minimise thedisadvantage experienced by students with disabilities rather than provide them with a competitiveadvantage'.

3.6.2 Principles and Policy in Reasonable Accommodations

S26 defined a reasonable accommodation as 'any piece of equipment or support that will enable the studentwith disability to demonstrate his/her ability, skills and competence. It 'seeks to redress the balance andenable the student to compete in examinations on an equal footing with other students'. It suggested that'the aim of reasonable accommodations is to enable a student to deal with the impact of the impairment andto ensure that the student is not treated less favourably then their peers'. In relation to policy, S26 proposedthat the Advisory Group 'has a clear statement in its policy on the principles of social inclusion and rights ofthe student with disability which underpin its policies'.

S35 suggested that the Framework of Principles outlined by the previous Expert Group 'remains valid'. It(S35) wrote:


31


Special arrangements are designed to assist a candidate in demonstrating their achievements in anexamination setting; they are not designed to compensate for a possible lack of achievement arising from adisability. Concomitantly, such arrangements should not give some candidates an advantage over othercandidates. Teachers have expressed concerns that a number of developments in schools could underminethis core principle.

S35 believed that a proper balance should be achieved between the needs of students who have receivedassistance to undertake the certificate examinations and the needs of the majority of students to have a fair,transparent and valid system of assessment and certification'.


33


CHAPTER 4

Reasonable Accommodations in other jurisdictions

This chapter outlines some examples of practice in Australia, New Zealand, England, Wales and NorthernIreland, Scotland and the United States in relation to the principles, eligibility requirements, types ofaccommodations available and exclusions / special conditions that may attach to particularaccommodations. Common to all jurisdictions is the attempt to achieve a balance between facilitatingaccess to the test instrument on the one hand, and maintaining the validity and integrity of the assessmenton the other.

There is no universally recognised set of terms within the sphere of Reasonable Accommodations. Theterminology includes, for example, 'access arrangements', 'special arrangements', 'accommodations','reasonable accommodations', 'reasonable adjustments', 'standard accommodations', 'non-standardaccommodations', 'alternate assessment' and 'modifications'.

4.1 Principles and purpose of Reasonable Accommodations

In all cases, principles under which the scheme of accommodations operated were published and thepurpose of the scheme was outlined. Reference was frequently made in the documentation to the potentialconflict between facilitating access to the assessment on the one hand, and maintaining the validity of theassessment on the other.

In the UK, for example, the Joint Council for Qualifications Arrangements notes that access arrangementsare intended 'to allow attainment to be demonstrated'. They are intended to increase access to assessments,but 'cannot be granted where they will directly affect performance in the skills that are the focus of theassessment' (JCQ, 2006, p.1). Similarly, they will not be permitted if they 'compromise the assessmentcriteria' (JCQ, 2006, p. 2).

It should be remembered that where assessment criteria… would be compromised by any adjustment madeto take account of the impairment, the assessment criteria will take precedence and will not be waived. Thisincludes the demonstration of knowledge, understanding and skills required by the specification. (JCQ, 2006,p. 32)

In Scotland, the documentation states that 'any adjustment to the published assessment arrangement shouldnot compensate for a candidate's inability to meet set standards. There should be no change to thepublished assessment criteria which state the standards for a Unit or Course' (SQA, 2004, p. 5).

In Australia, the Disability Standards for Education 2005 states that 'the assessment procedures andmethodologies for the course or program are adapted to enable the student to demonstrate the knowledge,skills or competencies being assessed.' In Western Australia, the regulations state that 'The sameknowledge, understandings and skill requirements, and performance standards are applied to all studentswhether or not they are granted special provisions' and that.' Special provisions do not confer an advantageto any candidate over other candidates' (Government of Western Australia, 2005, p. 1).The US has no national examination system and each state has its own policies and procedures regardingaccommodations. However there are national policies and legislation regarding discrimination againstpeople with disabilities that affect the types of accommodations that can be offered.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as "the Nation's Report Card," is theonly nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do invarious subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics,science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts.

In relation to accommodations, NAEP does not provide spelling or grammar accommodations in writingassessments on the basis that spelling and grammar are part of the measured construct. In other subjects(such as reading or science), misspellings and grammatical errors in response to constructed responsequestions are not counted against the student unless the answer is not intelligible or the student's mistakeis such that the answer is wrong.


34


4.2 Eligibility

Considerable emphasis is placed in most jurisdictions on accommodations mirroring the candidates 'normalway of working'. In many cases, supporting evidence from the school regarding the supports that had beenprovided in the school environment is required as part of the application and verification process.

4.3 Provisions

In general, the range of available accommodations in the countries researched is similar to those availablein Ireland. However, Ireland would appear to be unique in the availability of the waiver inspelling/grammar/punctuation.

4.4 Exclusions / special conditions

Particular exclusions and conditions are in place in many jurisdictions regarding certain accommodations,for example readers and scribes. For example, the NZQA has outlined certain conditions attaching to theprovision of readers and scribes. In the case of languages, the candidate must read the target language asthat is part of the test or assessment construct. The NZQA notes that writer assistance (scribe) 'may riskinvalidating a candidate's responses in some standards' (examinations).

Significantly, if a candidate has writer assistance (scribe) in a language examination, the candidate mustspell each word in the language being assessed to the writer and tell the scribe of any punctuationnecessary for the language. The rationale for this is that the demonstration of the ability to produce the targetlanguage is part of the test for the candidate. The writer or scribe must ensure that the candidate contributesdirectly to these requirements during the examination i.e. the candidate must tell the writer about the spellingof words, where to start paragraphs, what punctuation to include, and grammatical conventions.

In the UK, for example, (excluding Scotland), 'a reader will not be allowed in sections of papers testingreading, such as English, Irish (or Gaeilge), Welsh, Modern Foreign Language reading papers, someClassical specifications requiring the candidate to read in Greek or Latin or in subjects testing reading suchas GCSE English Literature or GCE English Language or Literature or combined Language/Literaturespecifications' (JCQ, 2006, p. 6, section 2.2.6).

In relation to scribes, the following is the relevant regulation:

A scribe will not be allowed in subjects testing writing, such as Modern Foreign Language writing papers,unless the candidate can dictate foreign words letter by letter. In other subjects testing written communicationskills, including English, Irish (or Gaeilge) and Welsh, a scribe will be allowed, but the candidate will beassessed only on those aspects of written communication which he or she can demonstrate independently,such as use of language, effective and grammatical presentation. If separate marks are awarded for spellingand punctuation, these cannot be credited to a candidate using a scribe. Marks may be awarded forpunctuation if this is dictated, and the fact is noted on the scribe cover sheet. A scribe will not be allowed if a candidate's literacy difficulties are primarily caused by English not being their first language (p. 9, section2.3.6).

In Scotland, the following is the regulation regarding the use of scribes in language examinations

…in the assessment of writing in Modern Languages, Gaelic and Gàidhlig, where it is the overall quality of thewritten language, particularly spelling accuracy, which is being assessed, the scribe must follow explicitinstructions from the candidate with regard to spelling and/or the placement of accents. A scribe cannotassume that the candidate knows how to spell a word/phrase in the foreign language If the candidate isunable to instruct the scribe in such a way because of, for example, a severe specific learning difficulty, thenthe centre will have to consider a more appropriate and reasonable adjustment for the candidate - one whichdoes not compromise the integrity of the assessment. (SQA, 2004, p.36)

In the UK, candidates with severe sensory disabilities may be exempted from part of a specification. In theseinstances an award is issued on the basis of the units taken without the zero score affecting the final gradeawarded. In these cases, the candidate's certificate indicates that he or she has not undertaken all parts of


35


the assessment. These practices are similar to those that currently obtain in Ireland.

SQA does not annotate certificates, having formally discontinued the practice in 2001. SQA's approach toexempting candidates with certain disabilities from undertaking certain components of an award differs fromthe approach of General Qualifications Bodies in England & Wales. In Standard Grade qualifications, acandidate can omit a complete Element or Elements of the qualification and only the Elements completedare reported on the Certificate. The overall award gained by the candidate and reported on the Certificateshows exactly what the candidate has done to achieve the particular Grade. For example, a candidate whocannot speak may omit the Speaking Element in Standard Grade French and get an overall mark based onthe other Elements (Reading, Writing and Listening) successfully completed. In this case, it is clear from thecandidate's certificate what the candidate has actually demonstrated to achieve the overall grade for theStandard Grade qualification.

4.5 Summary

Preliminary research on international practice in Reasonable Accommodations would suggest that thefollowing are common features:

(a) A published set of principles in which the importance of maintaining the validity and integrity of the assessment is explicitly stated

(b) Anti-discrimination legislation enacted

(c) Particular exclusions attaching to certain accommodations where the granting of the particularaccommodation may impact on the assessment construct, and hence, on the validity of the assessment.For example, a scribe might not be a permitted accommodation in language subjects where spelling ispart of the assessment.

(d) Exemptions from elements of the assessment with either accompanying annotation of certificates or withcertification that makes explicit the elements of the examination that were actually assessed. In somejurisdictions, no exemptions from the published assessment specification are allowed.


37


CHAPTER 5

Issues for consideration

5.1 General

This chapter highlights some key issues for consideration and discussion. The issues have been formulatedarising from the analysis of the submissions received, meetings held with statutory agencies, preliminaryresearch, and an examination of practice in other jurisdictions. The issues that arise in assessment agenciesand organisations internationally regarding the granting of examination accommodations are similar.Fundamentally, the issues include:

(i) the requirement to facilitate access to examinations by candidates with disabilities in order to allowdemonstration of attainment

(ii) the obligation on assessment agencies to comply with relevant legislation, including anti-discriminationlegislation and

(iii) the requirement to uphold the principle of inter-candidate equity and maintain the validity and integrityof the assessment.

5.2 Topics for discussion / debate

5.2.1 Administrative issues

(a) Information / GuidelinesThe submissions suggest a number of measures that would improve the administration of the scheme. Theseinclude, for example, the provision of clearer information on the scheme, more user-friendly documentationand guidelines, and earlier application and notification of decisions.

- Are there any other measures that would improve the administration of the scheme from the perspective of the range of individuals and groups involved?

(b) Variation in the application process - Junior Certificate/Leaving CertificateUnder the current scheme, a different application model operates at Junior Certificate and LeavingCertificate. Essentially, at Junior Certificate, a devolved model is in place with responsibility for decision-making largely devolved to schools. At Leaving Certificate, a centralised model is in place and eachapplication must be assessed by a psychologist from NEPS.

- To what extent might the current model give rise to expectations of accommodations being granted at Leaving Certificate that may not be realised?

- Should consideration be given to restructuring the current model?

5.2.2 Eligibility issues

(a) The purpose of the Scheme of Reasonable Accommodations'Special arrangements are designed to assist a candidate in demonstrating his or her achievements in anexamination setting. They are not designed to compensate for a possible lack of achievement arising froma disability' (Principle 5 - Expert Group 2000). This interpretation of the purpose of the Scheme ofReasonable Accommodations appears to be consistent with international practice and documentation.

- To what extent are the purposes of the current scheme explicit?

- Are there differing perceptions regarding the core purpose of the scheme?

- Are there other purposes for a Scheme of Reasonable Accommodations that should be considered?If so, what are they?


38


(b) The principles underpinning the Scheme of Reasonable Accommodations

The Framework of Principles developed by the Expert Group in 2000 that underpin the current scheme isgiven on page 14.

- Are these Principles equally valid today?

- To what extent are edits or amendments to these Principles required?

- Are there overarching or core principles?

(c) Eligibility for the scheme

- Are there particular issues that need to be addressed regarding eligibility for the scheme? For example, should students with an Individualised Education Plan (IEP) be automatically granted reasonable accommodation?

- In the case of candidates with psychological disabilities, what is the most appropriate model in determining eligibility for RACE?

- What should be the role of privately commissioned psychological assessments within the assessment of eligibility process?

- Most countries require that accommodations sought should reflect the candidates 'normal way of working' and require that evidence to this effect must be produced as part of the application process.Should this be a requirement for eligibility in the scheme?

(d) Curricular and syllabus issues

In some jurisdictions, an emphasis is placed on the skills required in a particular subject or discipline andon the selection by candidates of subjects in which they can demonstrate attainment. Explicit statements ofthe course requirements and the extent to which modifications or exemptions can be made may also beprovided.

In relation to Reasonable Accommodations, what issues should be considered at syllabus design stage?

Would the availability of statements outlining what modifications were possible or otherwise in particularsubjects be helpful in assisting in the selection of subjects for study?

Are there integral elements to syllabi to which exemptions cannot be made?

5.2.3 Specific accommodations and issues arising

Provision of alternative versions of the test instrument

(a) Alternative versions of the test instrumentAlternative versions include enlarged versions, Braille versions, Text version of Braille and the provision of areader.

Some other countries do not permit a reader when reading is part of the assessment construct. Currently, inIreland, a reader is permitted in all subjects but where reading is part of the assessment, annotation of thecertificate is applied as follows: 'All parts of the examination in this subject were assessed except the readingelement.'


- In view of the increasing availability and sophistication of assistive and other technologies, should consideration be given to using such technology rather than using a human reader?

- Are there any particular issues that should be considered regarding the use of a reader as an accommodation?

- Are there any particular issues that should be considered regarding any of the above alternative versions of the test instrument e.g. enlargements? Braille?

Provision of modified versions of the test instrument

(a) ExemptionsModified versions of test items are prepared each year. Where alternative questions are developed that allowthe same construct to be tested, and attainment to be demonstrated, the issue of annotation does not arise.International practice indicates that where the candidate demonstrates attainment in the specified elementsof the assessment, even if the means by which the candidate demonstrates attainment is changed tofacilitate access, the issue of annotation does not arise.

Exemptions and waivers include, for example, exemption from oral component, exemption from auralcomponent and the exemption from spelling and some grammatical elements. Annotation of certificates iscurrently a requirement in the above scenarios on the basis that not all elements of the published assessmentcriteria have been assessed.

- Is there an alternative to exemptions?

- Is there an alternative to the annotation of certificates?

- Should consideration be given to issuing results in subjects on a component basis for example, aural, oral, written component marks?

(b) Spelling and Grammar waiverResearch has indicated that the spelling and grammar waiver is not an available accommodation in othercountries. The statistics indicate a significant increase in the number of accommodations granted in thiscategory in recent years.

- Given that spelling and grammar are core competencies of language syllabi, is the spelling and grammar waiver an appropriate accommodation?

- Are there alternatives to the current spelling and grammar waiver that should be considered?

- Are there any other issues that the Advisory Group should consider in relation to this particular accommodation?

Variations in examination setting

These include accommodations such as special centres and additional time.

(a) Special CentresThe very significant growth in the number of special centres is a notable feature of the current scheme. Asindicated earlier, there were 6752 special centres in 2007, while there were some 4500 regular centres. Insome cases, a number of candidates who applied for and were granted a reader and/or scribe opted on theday of the examination not to avail of the reader / scribe but nonetheless to avail of the special centre. Thereare significant logistical issues associated with the growth in special centres.

- Are there any particular issues regarding special centres that should be considered?

39



40


(b) Additional timeIn 2000, the Expert Group recommended the implementation of a pilot project in which subjects with a heavylanguage content were allocated an additional 20 minutes examination time.

- What approach should be taken to the pilot project of 20 minutes additional time for all candidates in Irish, English, History and Geography at Leaving Certificate?

- Should consideration be given to a more flexible approach to the issue of additional time generally as an accommodation?

Variations in the medium used

These include word processors, scribes, tape recorders, Assistants, and Technology / Adaptive technology.

(a) ScribesIn the case of scribes and tape recorders, annotation of certificates is currently a requirement in languagesubjects where spelling/grammar/punctuation is part of the assessment. Other countries generally eitherrequire the candidate to spell the words and indicate the punctuation to the scribe or, alternatively, do notallow a scribe in subjects where spelling / grammar/ punctuation are part of the assessment. The issue ofannotation does not arise in these cases.

- Are there any particular issues in relation to the use of a scribe as an accommodation?

- Should consideration be given to adopting practice from other jurisdictions (where, for example, the candidate specifies the grammar and punctuation to the scribe in language subjects) and by so doing,eliminate the current requirement for annotation of certificates in language subjects?

(b) Word processors, tape recorders, Assistants, and Technology / Adaptive technology

- Are there any particular issues in relation to the use of any of the above accommodations that should be considered by the Advisory Group?

5.2.4 Trauma and Adversity / absentee candidates / repeat examinations.

(a) Trauma and bereavementEvery effort is made by the SEC to accommodate candidates who suffer illness, bereavement or othertrauma either immediately before or during the examinations. Each year, arrangements are made to cater fora wide range of emergencies. These include alterations to the standard examination timetable and specialsittings in venues such as hospitals. The National Educational Psychological Service also assists schoolsand students in crisis situations during examinations.

The SEC has indicated that for a number of reasons, it is not feasible to provide repeat examinations.

Notwithstanding the above, it has been suggested that consideration should be given to establishing aprocess within the scheme to cater for candidates who suffer bereavement at examination time.

- What appropriate measures, if any, might be established for candidates who cannot sit an examinationbecause of a severe trauma such as bereavement?

- To what extent should the provisions of any such scheme extend? Illness? Anxiety? Hospitalisation? Absenteeism? How would one ensure that any such measures would be available to genuine cases only?

5.2.5 Any other issues

- Are there any additional issues that should be considered by the Advisory Group in its deliberations?


41


Bibliography

Department of Education and Science (1994) Circular S40/94 Special Arrangements for Candidates withDisabilities Dublin

Examinations Branch (2000) Circular S11/2000 Revised arrangements that enhance and extend theprovisions set out in Circular S40/94, arising from the Advisory Group's set of principles and recommendationsDepartment of Education and Science Dublin

Examinations Branch Circular S70/2000 Information Note regarding the Scheme of ReasonableAccommodations which will apply at the 2001 Certificate Examinations Department of Education and ScienceDublin

Expert Advisory Group on Certificate Examinations (1999) Arrangements for the examination of candidateswith Special Needs - Discussion Paper Dublin: Department of Education and Science

Expert Advisory Group on Certificate Examinations (2000) Arrangements for the Assessment of candidateswith special needs in the Certificate Examinations - Report to the Minister for Education and ScienceDublin: Department of Education and Science

Government of Western Australia (2005) Policy and Guidelines for Special Provision in External ExaminationsGovernment Publications Perth

Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) (2006) Access Arrangements and Special Considerations - Regulationsand Guidance relating to candidates who are eligible for adjustments in examinations 1 September 2006 - 31August 2007

New Zealand Qualifications Authority Guidelines for Examination Assistants Reader/writer Instructions at nzqawebsite http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/acrp/secondary/docs/special-assess-4-examassists.doc

New Zealand Qualifications Authority website www.nzqa.govt.nz/publications/circulars

New Zealand Qualifications Authority Special Exclusions athttp://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/acrp/secondary/docs/special-assess-exclusions.doc

Scottish Qualifications Authority (2004) Guidance on Assessment Arrangements for Candidates withDisabilities and/or Additional Support Needs Glasgow

State Examinations Commission (2006) Manual for Drafters, Setters and Assistant Setters Athlone

State Examinations Commission (2006) The preparation of test items - Principles and Protocol Athlone

Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia (2006) Special Provisions in Curriculum andAssessment - Policy Statement (Retrieved 17 July 2007, from the World Wide Web)

Thurlow, M., & Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy(Synthesis Report 41).Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on EducationalOutcomes. Retrieved 6 July 2007, from the World Wide Web:http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis41.html

www.sqa.org.uk


43


APPENDIX 1 - List of submissions received

A total of 42 submissions were received

Individual submissions (20)Name StatusMarion Allen ParentBusiness Studies Teachers Coláiste Choilm, Swords, Co DublinSusan Brophy Learning Support TeacherKen Concannon IndividualFergus and Mary Cosgrave ParentsNora Doran ParentMargaret Ferguson ParentPhilomena Garvey ParentAudrey HalpinAudrey Herlihy TeacherRegina Leahy ParentElayne McDermott TeacherLorna Mulvihill Department of Finance Disability Advisory OfficerAnne Price ParentAlan Quinn 3rd level studentJulie Quinn ParentMichael Redmond PrincipalVal Reilly SEN co-ordinatorAnne O'Brien and Mary Waddell Teachers

Organisations (22)ACCS - Association of Community and Comprehensive SchoolsAHEAD - Association for Higher Education Access and DisabilityASPIRE - Asperger Syndrome Association of IrelandASTI - Association of Secondary Teachers IrelandBrainwave - Irish Epilepsy Association CURAM - Irish NGO seeking recognition for unremunerated parents and carers.DAWN - Disability Advisors Working NetworkDyslexia Association of IrelandHADD - offering support to families with Hyperactivity and Attention Deficit DisorderIVEA - Irish Vocational Education AssociationJMB - Joint Managerial Body NADP - National Association for Deaf PeopleNAPD - National Association of Principals and Deputy-PrincipalsNCBI - National Council for the Blind in IrelandNCCA - National Council for Curriculum and AssessmentNEPS - National Educational Psychological ServiceNPSA - National Parents and Siblings AlliancePACCS - Parents' Association of Community and Comprehensive SchoolsREHABTUI - Teachers' Union of IrelandUnion of Secondary School Students Visiting Teacher Service (Hearing Impaired)


sec reasonable accom final · 2008-01-18 · • ms sarah craig, head of disability databases...

Documents