[ad_1]
The first of what may be several legal challenges against the system used to calculate Leaving Certificate results has reached the Superior Court.
The action against the State has been brought by Aine Finnegan of Fairview in Dublin 3.
She was disappointed after she narrowly missed a place to study medicine at Trinity College Dublin by two points after three of her calculated grades were lowered.
His application was filed with Judge Charles Meenan, who was told that several other potential challenges similar to the calculated grade system are pending.
The court heard that the student studied for her certificate of completion at the Dublin Institute of Education, which pays fees.
There he studied to be able to obtain the necessary points that allow him to fulfill his dream of studying medicine and becoming a doctor.
He had done well in his job and had scored very high on the Health Professions Admission Test (HPAT), which anyone looking for a place in medicine must take.
As a result of exams being canceled due to the Covid-19 pandemic, his teachers’ estimated grades gave him six H1s and one H2 in the subjects he chose.
However, on her calculated scores, she was downgraded in three subjects, English, Spanish, and math from H1 to H2, which took her two points away from a place in medicine at TCD.
He claims that the process used by the State to calculate their grades is unfair to those who attend classes in high-performing schools, who collectively score very high.
He states that the grades he obtained in the standardization process are not an exact reflection of what he achieved in the three degraded subjects.
As a result, he has taken action against the Minister of Education, the Irish Minister for Continuing and Higher Education and the Attorney General. TCD is a notified part of the action.
The student, represented by Micheal O’Higgins SC, with Brendan Hennessy Bl instructed by attorney Eileen McCabe, is seeking several orders, including an order reversing the decision to lower her calculated grades.
She also seeks statements, including that the standardization model for calculated grades is unfair and against the law because it does not give proper weight to the high performance of the chosen school.
In addition, it seeks statements that the State acted illegally by downgrading its results by crudely adjusting the estimated high grades that appear in a group, and by not having an appropriate process to determine the grades calculated for students attending a school of high performance.
The student is ‘not sure what criteria he used’
The attorney said his client was disappointed with the ratings he received. He said the school he attended had estimated that he would get more than 70 H1s in Spanish and 120 H1s in math.
However, following the standardization process, the attorney said that only half of the expected number of students achieved H1 in those subjects.
The attorney said that while expert evidence on the standardization process was still being obtained, his client was not sure what criteria the state was actually using to estimate his scores.
Weight appeared to be tied to Junior Certificate results, but it was unclear how much of his final results counted, the attorney added.
The state had decided “at the end of the day” that it would not take into account the historical performance of schools in the past when calculating final grades for students, the attorney said.
The attorney said the state did not appear to make corrections to the algorithm or problem-solving process it used to estimate grades, taking into account the “clusters” where the majority of students in classes would score the highest.
This, the attorney said, was unfair to his client and other students at those schools. The attorney also said that it is his client’s case that there is no meaningful appeal under the calculated rating system.
The judge said he was aware of the short time the process involved given the approach to the new academic year, and that students have the opportunity to take Leaving Cert exams in mid-November.
The judge also said that expert evidence from both parties would be required, and that these experts may need to be questioned.
The judge said it was important that the parties exchange expert evidence as soon as possible.
The judge said that given the complexities involved in the action he was directing, the request for permission to present the challenge is heard with notice or in the presence of the other parties.
He deferred the matter to a date next week.
O’Higgins acknowledged the complexities involved in the case. He said he was hopeful that the matter could be heard in early October and that the matter could be resolved in a way that would result in minimal disruption to all parties involved.
[ad_2]