[ad_1]
A draft standardization model for grades showed that Mount Anville School in Dublin would see a substantial reduction in its traditionally high Leaving Cert grades once the school’s historical data was excluded, the High Court has heard.
The model, introduced due to the interruption of exams as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, would have led to grade downgrades for fee-based school students in some subjects by up to 70 percent, the court was told. .
The draft model also showed that historically low performing schools on the Leaving Cert would benefit from the exclusion of historical school data, said Feichin McDonagh SC.
McDonagh, who represents Belvedere College student Freddie Sherry in the ‘main’ challenge of about 30 cases on the computed grades process, said that material obtained from the Department of Education this week shows that the Minister was aware of those preliminary models days before that she directed at the end of August, to exclude historical school data when awarding calculated grades.
The direction of Education Minister Norma Foley was ratified by the Cabinet on September 1.
McDonagh said the deletion of historical data did “significant harm” to Sherry, who claims it led to him being unfairly downgraded 55 points on his exit certificate.
Eileen Barrington SC, for the Minister, said the decision to exclude historical data from schools arose out of concerns to ensure fairness and confidence in the grading system calculated here, especially after the “debacle” in the UK that led to their abandonment of a calculated ratings process based on the inclusion of such data.
The referenced draft model was not the final model used in the computed ratings process, he said. The final model was developed from several preliminary models, but his side had never argued that historical data from the school was excluded.
Belvedere College fared better relative to Leaving Cert grades this year than in previous years, so it cannot be assumed that Sherry would have done better on her grades if another version of the grade standardization model had been applied, she added. Mrs. Barrington.
Both parties presented presentations during a hearing before Judge Charles Meenan on Friday on the pretrial requests in the Sherry case.
Mr. Sherry, of Newtown, Celbridge, Co Kildare, also represented by Micheál P. O’Higgins SC and Brendan Hennessy BL, instructed by Ferrys Solicitors, says he was “hugely disappointed”. reduced to 487 in the process.
Her first course choice was pharmacy at TCD and she was faced with the prospect of taking the rescheduled Leaving Cert written exams, she said.
Critical importance
In a pretrial request, his attorneys want inspection of two preliminary grade standardization models, one that excludes the school’s historical data and another that includes it, which they say is of “critical” importance to the case.
In opposing that request, Ms. Barrington said that Sherry’s side had failed to demonstrate that the inspection of the preliminary models is necessary for him to present his case.
This case started with a claim that the historical data should not have been removed, which involved discussions between statisticians on the sides, and statisticians on their side would say that it was not possible to know what results would have been with the earlier models, he said.
The minister and state respondents have also argued that some of the material sought by Mr. Sherry’s side attracts the privilege of cabinet confidentiality.
In contesting that claim, McDonagh said that he was not looking for documents related to the Cabinet discussions, but that he has the right to see the material considered by the Cabinet on September 1 in the context of his side’s view that the ministers were not. objectively informed on all issues.
The undersecretary of the Department of Education issued a memorandum on August 24 advising relevant bodies to abandon the school’s historical data in which the only reasons given were references to criticism in public discourse that could affect confidence in the system, he said.
“Strangely enough, it was the fact of the criticism, not its precision, that precipitated the change.”
Since then, the department’s public officials had tried to “sidestep” the issue by saying that what happened had turned out to be reasonably fair.
At his side he had been given “the gist” of what cabinet members were told and has the right to requested documents, he said.
The hearing continues on Tuesday.
[ad_2]