Joint Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen debate -
Thursday, 16 May 2024

Reasonable Accommodation for Dyslexic Students in State Examinations: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Our next business is public petition No. P00049/23, Extra Time to be introduced as a Reasonable Accommodation for Dyslexic Students in State Examinations (Junior Cycle and Leaving Certificate), from the Dyslexia Association Ireland. We are meeting with representatives of the State Examinations Commission and the Department of Education in regard to public petition No. P00049/23.

Before we begin, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or to otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks.

It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Before we hear from our witnesses, I propose we publish their opening statements on the committee’s website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf the committee, I extend a warm welcome to the official from Department of Education, Ms Celeste O’Callaghan, principal officer, curriculum and assessment policy; and to the representatives from the State Examinations Commissions, Ms Andrea Feeney, chief executive officer; and Mr. Richard Dolan, director of operations. I suggest our witnesses make their opening statements for around five to ten minutes each. When all the witnesses have made their opening statements, we will then have questions and comments from members. Each member will get ten minutes and they should be able to come back in for a second round of questions.

I call on Ms O’Callaghan from the Department of Education to make her opening statement.

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend. I am principal officer in the curriculum and assessment policy unit in the Department of Education and my remit includes responsibility for matters relating to the State examinations. The Department’s role is a broad one of policy oversight, as distinct from the State Examinations Commission’s operational responsibility for the development and delivery of the State examinations.

The accommodations provided under the SEC’s scheme of reasonable accommodations at certificate examinations, more generally known as the RACE scheme, are an important part of the SEC’s operational remit. In that context, I understand that my colleagues in the SEC will set out in their opening statement further detail on the RACE scheme and the different accommodations in place for students, including those with dyslexia.

From a policy perspective, the Department is very conscious of the importance of the RACE scheme in facilitating fair and equal access to the State examinations for all candidates who would have difficulty in accessing the examinations or communicating what they know because of visual or hearing difficulties, a learning difficulty or a physical difficulty. As members might be aware, the number of candidates being provided with accommodations is rising and in 2023, for example, nearly 22% of candidates were provided with reasonable accommodation. In ensuring that the RACE scheme continues to meet the needs of all candidates, the SEC undertook fundamental reform of the scheme in the 2016-17 school year. It continues to ensure that the scheme is subject to ongoing review and improvement to meet the needs of all students, including students with dyslexia, and that this is informed by engagement with stakeholders.

The SEC intends that the RACE scheme will be subject to further review in the context of the ongoing senior cycle redevelopment. The Department welcomes the SEC’s ongoing focus on the review of the scheme and its intention to continue to ensure extensive consultation and engagement with all of the relevant stakeholders.

I am happy to respond to any questions the committee may have.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I am the chief executive officer with the SEC. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Richard Dolan, director of operations. I thank the committee for the invitation to talk to members about the petition for extra time to be introduced as a reasonable accommodation for dyslexic students in the State examinations.

The SEC has statutory responsibility for the operation, delivery and development of the State certificate exams. We are fully committed to providing an examination and assessment system with the highest possible standards of inclusiveness, equity and fairness and which enables all candidates to display their achievements. We take very seriously our obligation to provide access to the certificate exams for candidates with special educational needs and we work closely with school authorities, the Department of Education, which has responsibility for matters of examinations policy, and other agencies in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the access arrangements in the exams. We also actively engage with persons with disabilities through their representative organisations.

Before addressing the specific matter of additional time, I will first provide an overview of how the SEC ensures the accessibility of the State certificate exams, first through the design of examinations and, second, through the RACE scheme.

The accessibility of an examination refers to the extent to which all candidates are facilitated in demonstrating their achievements in the context of the need to preserve the integrity, fairness and standards of the examination. Access is facilitated by developing examination papers and other instruments that are designed to be as accessible as possible to the broadest range of candidates, including those with special educational needs. All examination materials are reviewed in the course of their development with a view to eliminating inappropriate barriers, and careful consideration is given as to whether the means of assessment rely on a skill or competence that is not properly part of the focus of the assessment but which could exclude candidates with certain disabilities.

Through the RACE scheme, the SEC also facilitates access by candidates who would have a difficulty with access or communicating what they know to an examiner because of a physical difficulty - this category includes medical, sensory, behavioural and mental health issues - visual and hearing impairments, or learning difficulties. It is important to note that access arrangements are intended to, first, remove, as far as possible, the impact of a disability on the candidate’s performance and enable the candidate to demonstrate their level of attainment; and, second, ensure that while giving candidates every opportunity to demonstrate their level of attainment, the special arrangements will not give the candidate an unfair advantage over other candidates in the same examination. It has been said that these two key principles are core to any discussion on the scheme. It encapsulates the fundamental challenge of, on the one hand, attempting to provide access for candidates with particular needs to demonstrate their level of attainment while, on the other hand, attempting to ensure that the principle of inter-candidate equity is not compromised in the measures taken to provide access. In common with similar schemes that operate in other jurisdictions, the focus of the scheme is on removing barriers to access while retaining the need to assess the same underlying skills and competencies as are assessed for all other candidates.

The application process is school-led and schools have devolved authority to recommend the supports that are required from among those available within the scheme based on the candidates’ needs and their normal way of working. Eligibility criteria apply and accommodations are provided in accordance with the principles and requirements of the scheme. In general, the SEC will accept the recommendation of the school based on its assessment against the criteria. Accommodations granted at junior cycle are generally carried through to leaving certificate, which gives certainty from an early stage of a student’s post-primary education of the supports that they will have in the State exams.

The scheme is operated within the context of an annually issued RACE Instructions for Schools, which includes a framework of principles developed by an expert advisory group to guide all policy and operational decisions. Decisions are open to appeal to an independent appeals committee and there is also recourse to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children.

An extensive range of accommodations is available, including reading accommodations; writing accommodations; provision of non-standard versions of examination papers; modified tests; sign language interpreters; assistance in practical tests; access to shared or individual special examination centres; waivers and exemptions; as well as additional time and rest breaks in certain circumstances.

For candidates with learning difficulties such as dyslexia, the accommodations available are: an individual reader to read the examination papers; a reading assistant; an exam reading pen, which scans text and converts it to speech; a laptop or tablet to type responses; a recording device to record responses; and, in exceptional circumstances, access to a scribe. Finally, we have the waiver from the assessment of spelling, punctuation and certain elements of grammar in language subjects.

As my colleague said, the numbers of candidates accessing supports has increased steadily year on year since the establishment of the SEC in 2003, when 5% of all candidates were provided with reasonable accommodations. Ten years later, in 2012, this had increased to 13% of the overall cohort. In 2023, when 132,000 candidates sat examinations, almost 22% of the total cohort had access arrangements provided to them under the RACE scheme. Of the 34,500 individual accommodations granted last year, 75% were granted to candidates on grounds of learning difficulties such as dyslexia, but limited to that condition.

Additional time in which to complete the examinations is not an accommodation that can be sanctioned in its own right within the scheme. Other than in leaving certificate Irish, English, history and geography, additional time at a rate of ten extra minutes per hour can be provided in three specific circumstances: candidates for whom the use of a scribe has been sanctioned; vision-impaired candidates under the care of the visiting teacher service; and candidates unable to make adequate use of a sanctioned laptop or tablet in examination conditions.

Any consideration of the question of additional time in which to complete examinations cannot be viewed in isolation from the policy context in which the SEC provides the scheme of reasonable accommodations. In its consideration of additional time, the expert advisory group recognised the particular challenge in providing time-related accommodations. It stated:

The provision of extra time has the clear potential to allow a candidate to provide additional information in response to questions ... On the face of it [that] additional time could confer an unfair advantage on individual candidates ... [F]or some candidates, additional time would do no more than enable them to access the test instrument in a way available to all candidates. To ensure that extra time is restricted only to those who would achieve no advantage is well-nigh impossible.

The challenge in determining the allocation of additional time for candidates with learning difficulties, including dyslexia, was recognised by this group and led to two particular measures being introduced that have endured to this day. First, additional time of 20 minutes per examination was introduced in 2000 for all candidates in the leaving certificate Irish, English, history and geography - subjects with a heavy writing demand. That was introduced to meet the needs of candidates with special needs by making the time element of these examinations less critical. The second was the introduction of a waiver from spelling, grammar and punctuation in the language subjects, which was specifically developed to address the time issue for candidates with learning difficulties.

It should be noted that, to our knowledge, this waiver, which essentially exists in lieu of additional time, is unique to the Irish examinations system.

As noted by the petitioners, a later advisory group made recommendations in its report published in 2009. It stated that accommodations of additional time should continue to be made available for candidates with special educational needs or specific learning disabilities. In exceptional situations, the amount of additional time might be as much as 25%. However, the 2009 group also recommended that serious consideration be given to the withdrawal of the spelling and grammar waiver in language subjects on the basis that spelling and grammar are a core element of language subjects. The group also recommended the withdrawal of the additional time, which applies to this day, to all candidates taking the four subjects that I have mentioned. On the one hand it spoke about enhancing the time accommodation but it also recommended removing two supports that exist in lieu of additional time in the Irish State examinations.

The SEC strives to create an inclusive environment while ensuring integrity and equal opportunities for all candidates. The RACE scheme continues to be developed to best meet the needs of candidates while being faithful to the fundamental principles whereby in considering access and support arrangements for individual candidates with special needs, there must also be consideration of equity and fairness for the general body of candidates. Changes to the scheme included fundamental reform in the 2016-17 school year to improve system quality and delivery issues to align the scheme with overall special education policy and provide greater access for candidates with learning difficulties. Since 2019, deferred leaving certificate examinations have been provided for candidates who miss their examinations due to close family bereavement or, since 2022, due to serious accident, illness or injury. Since 2023 there have been a number of enhancements to the scheme for vision impaired candidates, including piloting digital examination papers.

We acknowledge there is increasing complexity in the special education landscape and, by extension, the certificate examinations. In the context of senior cycle redevelopment, we have commenced work on a comprehensive system-wide review of the RACE scheme. A focus of the review will be on increasing the use of assistive technology to enhance access and integrity and to further support independent learning.

Some areas of recent focus by commentators and stakeholders in relation to RACE include: the provision of supports for candidates who have processing or cognitive issues, including those with autistic spectrum disorders; the range of supports appropriate to those who are vision or hearing impaired; and the adequacy of additional time within the scheme. The review will consider all relevant issues and take account of best practice internationally. There will be extensive consultation and engagement with as broad a range of stakeholders as possible, including young people with special educational needs and their families, and representative organisations including the Dyslexia Association of Ireland. At this time, the SEC is finalising the terms of reference and the composition of the structures that will underpin the review, with the work being overseen by our board of commissioners. Mr. Dolan and I will be happy to respond to questions that committee members may have.

An Cathaoirleach

I want to ask a couple of quick questions. The first is for the Department. Is there no way it can work with the SEC to ensure there is reasonable accommodation for dyslexic students in State examinations at junior certificate and leaving certificate stage? Would it not be expedient for the Department to develop a policy framework to fast-track the provision of extra time for such students?

According to Ms O'Callaghan's opening statement the number of candidates being provided with accommodations is increasing and, for example, in 2023 almost 22% of candidates were provided with reasonable accommodations. Is there a positive correlation between the increase and the performance of these students?

My next question is for the SEC. The petitioners are of the view that the provision of extra time would address the needs not covered by the existing available accommodations, including the spelling and grammar waiver. Does the SEC agree with this position?

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

The Cathaoirleach's first question is about the Department working with the SEC on this.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes. Is there any way the Department can work with the SEC?

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

The Department and the SEC work very closely together. We are in fairly ongoing contact on all manner of things relating to the State examinations but in a way that respects the distinction between the Department's role in policy and the SEC's role in terms of the operation of the scheme.

An array of accommodations is provided by the SEC and overall the set of accommodations available is very carefully worked out. The central tenet, and I will pass over to Ms Feeney later on this, is that students should be able to engage in the exams and demonstrate what they know so they are fully facilitated to do so. As Ms Feeney said in her opening statement, this should also be in a way that does not provide them with any advantage over a candidate with a different learning or physical difficulty or a candidate who does not have any difficulty. This overall approach to the accommodations needs to take account of ensuring it is a level playing field. What we seek to do is ensure a level playing field for all candidates. An individual intervention by the Department in one area without reference to the rest of the scheme, without very careful consideration or without particular expertise in the Department does risk unintended consequences. There could be unintended consequences with regard to fairness and integrity or a perception of these unintended consequences.

An Cathaoirleach

Unintended consequences in what way?

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

It is difficult to say. If we take an entire framework of accommodations and change one piece for one group, would it unbalance it with regard to the others? I am not saying it would or would not but this is the type of consideration that must be borne in mind. From the Department's perspective, the appropriate way to look at all of this is through the review which the SEC is now commencing. All of the issues can be properly considered together in this review. This is how we see it progressing.

The Cathaoirleach had another question.

An Cathaoirleach

It was on the rising number of candidates being provided with accommodations. In 2023-----

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

The question was on whether there is a positive correlation in terms of the results.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

I will have to hand over to Ms Feeney on this because I am not sure to what extent a differentiation is made in the data.

Ms Andrea Feeney

We would not necessarily expect to see a positive correlation due to the nature of the scheme. The accommodations provided in the scheme are designed to compensate for the students' disabilities and not to advantage them. We would not expect to see a positive correlation between the number of students being accommodated in the scheme and the results. The standard of the examinations should be maintained year on year as a core element of validity and reliability in the examinations. From this perspective we would not necessarily expect to see a positive correlation.

What is positive is the correlation between the number of students being accommodated in the scheme of reasonable accommodations and the Department's policy on students with special educational needs, particularly those in mainstream education. The numbers compare favourably with the numbers in schools with special educational needs. Not only this, our scheme compares very favourably internationally in terms of the proportion of students being provided with reasonable accommodations in the scheme. I hope that answers the Cathaoirleach's question on this particular aspect.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Ms Andrea Feeney

The Cathaoirleach asked whether we agree that additional time would address the issues that have been raised by the Dyslexia Association of Ireland. It is complicated. We have the two existing accommodations of additional time in four subjects with a heavy writing demand and the spelling and grammar waiver. To our knowledge, this waiver does not exist in any other jurisdiction. It is designed to address the absence of additional time. The concern is that if we add additional time without considering the two existing accommodations we could potentially have a situation not only where students would be advantaged if they have special educational needs but that there would be a fairness issue if it was seen to be attractive to other candidates who did not have special educational needs to be provided with certain accommodations such as additional time. This was the net issue the expert advisory group alluded to in its report in 2000. It is very difficult to distinguish who needs additional time and how to make that decision, and not only this but the quantum of additional time that students would have.

I will explain the scheme as it stands now. Reform of the scheme in 2016 and 2017 was not diagnosis led. In providing accommodations to students we are not looking for them to have a diagnosis of dyslexia. We are looking for them to have identified special educational needs in the school and be provided with learning supports in the school. This is their access to the scheme of reasonable accommodations rather than any particular diagnosis of dyslexia. Prior to the scheme change in 2016 and 2017, there was an equity issue in that in order to gain access to the scheme at leaving certificate people needed to have either a private psychological report, another type of a professional report or to have been seen by a NEPS psychologist.

For reasons of equity, in collaboration with NEPS, we moved to this needs-based approach of providing access to the scheme. One of the reasons the numbers of students within the scheme is growing, year on year, is because it is needs rather than diagnostics based.

An Cathaoirleach

There was a report in 2008 in which one of the clear recommendations was for the introduction of additional time. Some 16 years later, Ms Feeney is saying that has not happened. That report was set up as a guide and why, 16 years later, has that additional time not been included?

Ms Andrea Feeney

The report did not only recommend adding time; it also recommended removing the spelling and grammar waiver and the additional time that is available in respect of four particular subjects. Those recommendations were complex. The report was shared with the Department at that stage but was considered complex because it did not just make a single recommendation about time. Three recommendations in that report related to time. One change was to add or extend the time in one case, and the recommendation could be read in a number of ways because it included the word "continue". We were already providing additional time at that stage and the report included the word "continue". It also recommended removing the spelling and grammar waiver and the additional time in the four subjects.

An Cathaoirleach

I am looking at the specific section with the clear recommendation for the introduction of additional time.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Like any expert report, one would look at it in its entirety. Going through it and cherry-picking certain recommendations and not selecting others, particularly when they relate to time-----

An Cathaoirleach

The recommendations were made for specific students who would be struggling. It was not meant to apply to a wide range of students. It was specific to students with dyslexia.

Ms Andrea Feeney

The scheme has moved on since that time, with the reforms in 2016 and 2017. It is no longer based on a diagnosis of dyslexia. It is based on learning difficulties, the identification in the school of a particular need and the provision of supports and learning interventions. The scheme has developed massively since the 2008 advisory report. We are accommodating many more students under the scheme. Reform happened in 2016 and 2017. A significant change was made that had real repercussions throughout the system when decision-making was effectively devolved to schools, working in collaboration with the SEC. In 2016, the year before the change was introduced, we had 3,000 refusals of applications for reasonable accommodation. The change in the direction of the scheme came in from the 2016-17 school year, and schools were making those decisions. In 2023, we refused 93 applications. We have simplified engagement with the scheme and the access arrangements for the scheme. We are accommodating many more students within the scheme. In my view, notwithstanding the fact that additional time is not there, and that is something we need to look at and are looking at within the review of the scheme, it is a far better scheme than it was when the advisory group made its report in 2008.

Senator Tim Lombard

I welcome the witnesses. It is important that we have this debate and have clarity regarding what we are talking about. Approximately 136,000 students will be sitting the junior certificate and leaving certificate examinations this year. If we look at the statistics, 10% of those students are dyslexic. That is the cohort of people who are affected in the system today. That amounts, one way or another, to approximately 14,000 kids. They could be in the first percentile or in the 13th or 14th percentile. I know that those with scores at or below the tenth percentile get a special accommodation. There is great emotion about this issue, as there is about this meeting today. The unfortunate terminology of "unfair advantage" is used by the Department. I advise against its use because any parent of a dyslexic child who hears that giving extra time to such a child to do his or her leaving certificate or junior certificate examinations is giving him or her an unfair advantage would feel disrespected and hurt. I advise against the use of such terminology. I find it insulting.

We are looking for extra time. We are looking for kids who are going through leaving certificate examinations to get the same accommodation as is given in other European countries. France offers an extra 33% and other countries have similar models that offer extra time. To give an indication, the UK gives 25% more time, Italy gives 30% and France gives 33%. That is what happening in the European model regarding state examinations. Parents find it very confusing that the European model is giving extra time and the Irish model is not. They are asking how that is happening.

In third level education, extra time is available. I have seen that in recent months. There was no issue in getting an extra 10% at third level. Parents are frustrated that it is happening at a European level and at third level but it is not happening at junior certificate and leaving certificate level. That frustration is bubbling on occasion. Why are we the outlier? Why are we different to the third level institutions, which have an exceptional scheme to help people with special educational needs? That is a credit to those institutions. Why is the SEC the outlier when it comes to extra time? Why are we different to third level institutions in other EU member states? I reiterate that I advise against the use of the terminology to which I refer.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I will address the terminology. All exams bodies need to be concerned about the integrity of the process. That is not at all to take away from the students who have special educational needs and who need to be accommodated. However, our approach recognises the high-stakes nature of the leaving certificate. We could say we will introduce additional time and that may become something that someone could use to gain an advantage. I am not talking about students with special educational needs but others. That would disadvantage all other candidates, including those with special educational needs, were it to happen.

Senator Tim Lombard

We could argue there is an advantage now for children who are not dyslexic. They can process things faster.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Yes.

Senator Tim Lombard

The unfairness is not to the majority but to the minority, when we take into account that 10% of students are dyslexic.

Ms Andrea Feeney

As I said, we are accommodating 22%, and growing numbers, within the scheme of reasonable accommodation and 75% of the students currently being accommodated have that accommodation because of learning difficulties including dyslexia. Those people are encompassed within the scheme. I am sorry to use the language of "unfair advantage". It is not to denigrate-----

Senator Tim Lombard

Ms Feeney can see how people would be offended.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I absolutely can, and I appreciate it is an emotive issue. Our team are very skilled in dealing with parents, school authorities and students in relation to the scheme of reasonable accommodation. We are empathetic and compassionate in how we deal with those students. We will seek to provide as many accommodations as we can. The concern is that if the system were to be gamed, those are the students who would lose the most, if you like, in that others who do not need additional time would be granted it. In those circumstances, students with special educational needs would be further disadvantaged. It is a concern. We, as an examinations body, and in common with other examinations bodies throughout the world, must be concerned with the integrity of the examinations.

Senator Tim Lombard

Why are we out of sync with the European and third level models?

Ms Andrea Feeney

I will address that point. On the level of additional time, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. I appreciate what is done in other European countries, and certainly in the UK, our nearest comparator jurisdiction. In other parts of the world, 9% to 16% of additional time is granted. In higher education, the context is quite different. I am not an expert on what happens in higher education, but my understanding is that of the students who are attending higher education at the moment, in all years, the proportion of students being provided with disability supports is in the region of 6%. That compares with our 22%. While they might have additional time, there are far fewer students accessing supports at third level.

Senator Tim Lombard

We do not seem to get complaints regarding the ability of third level institutions to interact with dyslexic kids. In fact, we hear great compliments for how they interact.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I know additional time is a particular consideration but if we talk to stakeholders about the scheme of reasonable accommodation, they welcome it and what it provides. I know we are talking today about what it does not provide but the range of supports it does provide is welcome. Stakeholders also welcome the simplicity with which they can engage with the scheme. One aspect of it that compares favourably with third level relates to the equity piece.

One does need a medical report, a private psychological report or to pay money to access the scheme of reasonable accommodations. If someone is being accommodated or provided with learning support within the school that will assist in accessing the scheme of reasonable accommodations. My understanding is it is quite different from access to disability supports at third level.

Senator Tim Lombard

A person probably does not get the confirmation of access for the junior certificate until third year. Is that true?

Ms Andrea Feeney

Sorry?

Senator Tim Lombard

A person probably does not get the accommodation granted until he or she has started third year.

Ms Andrea Feeney

The application process for the junior cycle commences in third year.

Senator Tim Lombard

I am going slightly off the topic but I just wish to clarify this. There could be a scenario where a child, who is going through first year and second year with a computer to help him or her with typing and whatever else, would still be slightly unsure of whether the actual accommodation would be granted until the process with the State Examinations Commission in third year.

Ms Andrea Feeney

We hear that-----

Senator Tim Lombard

And we see it.

Ms Andrea Feeney

-----but no complaints have come to us about that happening. I appreciate some realignment needs to be done and those are things that the review-----

Senator Tim Lombard

There is an uncertain aspect, for obvious reasons-----

Ms Andrea Feeney

The review-----

Senator Tim Lombard

-----because the State Examinations Commission process does not start until third year. The child has spent the first two years of school going through a process and hoping he or she will get the accommodation but he or she does not get it until third year.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Once they get the accommodation in third year-----

Senator Tim Lombard

I agree.

Ms Andrea Feeney

-----he or she will know exactly what accommodations they will have for the leaving certificate.

Senator Tim Lombard

It is about getting to third year. The cycle is out of sync.

Ms Andrea Feeney

We are outlier for a number of reasons. There is the spelling and grammar waiver that is unique in this jurisdiction. It does not exist. In fact, it is not allowed at third level in Ireland because it is considered that spelling and grammar are so core to language subjects that there cannot be an exemption from them. That accommodation was introduced by that expert group in 2000 as a way of addressing the conundrum - and I will call it that - of trying to diagnose or determine who would be eligible for additional time.

While appreciating that we are having this conversation now, we are also committing that there is a review process. It is looking at integrating with the senior cycle redevelopment process. It is also looking at assistive technology in the exams and how we can do more in that space to support independent learning. The review will also respond to this issue of additional time, which I mentioned in my opening statement, as well as concerns about students with processing and cognitive difficulties not arising from dyslexia but from other forms of learning difficulty.

Senator Tim Lombard

Will Ms Feeney remind me what the four subjects are where additional time is granted?

Ms Andrea Feeney

They are heavy demand writing subjects - Irish, English, history and geography.

Senator Tim Lombard

If someone is a mathematics student and the terminology has been changed to make it wordier and if they go through the junior and leaving certificate examinations and are dyslexic and their ability to read the question is probably the biggest issue, they do not get extra time. I spoke about the project that was the runner up in the Young Scientist by a very capable young lady from Bandon who proved the difference between the UK model and the Irish model regarding how mathematics is worded. That is a huge issue for us. We have a system that is actively discriminating against dyslexic kids when it comes to mathematics.

Ms Andrea Feeney

On that one, we commend the young person for the work she did.

Senator Tim Lombard

Has Ms Feeney seen the project?

Ms Andrea Feeney

Yes, absolutely. We read it and have given a response to it. That was a particular objective of project maths which was to interconnect the various strands in maths which meant that, as part of the development, there was a knowledge that there would be additional reading for students in that examination. However, because of the policy imperative associated with project maths, on balance, it was felt that was the way to proceed with the teaching and learning of mathematics. For students who have a difficulty with reading, there are three reading accommodations they can be provided with depending on their level of need. They can have a full reader to read the examination to them, they can have a reading assistant to read words or phrases from an examination paper, or they can use an examination reading pen. In terms of the State Examinations Commission, the reading pen is really recognised and we were one of the first organisations to actually push the reading pen into schools. We met with a number of schools.

Senator Tim Lombard

That all takes time.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Yes.

Senator Tim Lombard

It all takes time for the process to happen. If someone has a reading pen or if someone can read it, there is a different time in terms of the actual exam. Kids are being taught how to work the reading pen more quickly. There is pressure on them to do it. It is a fantastic tool. I am not wronging the tool. It is a wonderful instrument but it is not as fast as a person who can read it correctly. If someone is on the fourth centile and has to go through that scenario with a reading pen and if Ms Feeney is trying to tell me that is giving that person an advantage, we have a problem here.

Ms Andrea Feeney

No, the Senator misunderstood me. I am not saying it gives them an advantage; I am saying that because of the high-stakes nature of the examinations there-----

Senator Tim Lombard

Surely Ms Feeney would agree that if someone was to read the examination or if they were to use a reading pen, the reading pen would take more time for mathematics.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I do not know because I do not have personal experience of scanning a mathematics examination paper. Other examination papers-----

Senator Tim Lombard

Can I give Ms Feeney my experience? I know it does and that is an issue. How mathematics is being looked at from the point of view of dyslexia is a real issue regarding extra time because it proves that students need extra time to go through the process for them to understand the question. If they understand the question they more than likely fly through it, but understanding is the key thing. There is the reading pen is a slower model. It does not work as fast as reading it, so we have a real issue here with project maths and how it is operated and how we need to move this forward is the obvious issue. We are not reinventing the wheel here. This is about trying to get additional time for kids who just need a little bit of help when it comes to understanding the question.

Ms Andrea Feeney

There are just two things I might say about where we go from here. The review of reasonable accommodations is tied into senior cycle redevelopment. As part of senior cycle redevelopment all leaving certificate specifications will be reviewed, including mathematics, and tied into that is our review process. I do not want to harp back to the reform in 2016 and 2017 but we engaged very intently with the Dyslexia Association of Ireland at that time in regard to making the changes we made to the scheme for the 2016-2017 school year. It really welcomed the changes that were made, such as the broadening of access to students who had a general learning difficulty as well as a specific learning difficulty. We have a good track record of listening to stakeholders. The scheme has proved itself to be very responsive in the last number of years. The review is the opportunity to take stock and see what else we need to do about the scheme and the issues the Senator raised will be taken on board at time through the review process.

Senator Tim Lombard

I will come back in again, Chair.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I thank the witnesses. It has been a Pandora's box, to be honest. It was a comprehensive opening statement. The statistics and the numbers are rising because the spectrum is broadening. We have to talk about one specific point and how we can accommodate it. I do not want to nit-pick but we are a committee, but we are also legislators. If there was a legislative change to make things better, could we do that to assist the State Examinations Commission? We also recognise the work the State Examinations Commission does, to give credit where it is due.

The issue I am worried about is the review. I understand where Senator Lombard was coming from. It is trying to strike the balance between access to the service based on the needs, fairness and what is compatible. Ms Feeney touched on points such as that people do not have to get a professional diagnosis but I am not putting more pressure on teachers and SNAs. They are at the forefront every day when kids are at school. Surely the mathematics teacher, an English teacher or whatever would spot problems in kids. Does the State Examinations Commission engage with schools? Is there a different format that could be used? I know it would be a large workload but when we see the numbers jumping from 19,500 in 2014 to almost 34,500 in 2023, it is a massive amount of work to try to accommodate so many people. I know where Ms Feeney is coming from. We do not want to give somebody a jump lead but unfortunately it is so complex and there are so many different issues and concerns here for people. Society has changed. Let us call a spade a spade. The number diagnosed with autism is rising rapidly and then that spreads to other complex issues. We could pick just one subject.

Normally, committees say there is so much to do and they look to where can they get the small wins first. A review was mentioned. There was a review in 2009 and another in 2016. While reading the notes, I wondered whether the review that started in 2016 was done every year or whether it was a case of possibly reviewing the situation the following year. Has the new review just started?

I welcome that this scheme is unique in our examination system. That is brilliant. I love thinking outside the box. It is difficult to please everyone, but is there a way to follow best international practice? Let us say another country has a higher standard. A percentage of 15%, 20% or 25% was mentioned. Is there a way for the commission and the Department, working with stakeholders like students, their families and, in particular, teachers, to use joined-up thinking in conducting a review? The parents of children with this complex need are frustrated. We in the Oireachtas often say that a commonsensical approach goes out the window. I know where the witnesses are coming from, in that their organisations have to try to be fair to everyone, but the parents we are listening to are asking for a commonsensical approach. The parents are probably the experts anyway, as they will have the kids most of the time. They are asking for an additional ten minutes or whatever. I understand Senator Lombard’s comments about pens and so on. A different type of processing is involved, one that is slower. Certain cohorts of children taking these exams are at a disadvantage because of the current rules, even though they are much more open than they were. I have sat on Oireachtas committees, including the committee on Sláintecare. The main line at that committee was that the service was to be provided on the basis of need, not means. Need is the main issue in this conversation.

I am thinking outside the box. Can it be done if we change the legislation? I do not know. How can we as a committee assist the witnesses’ organisations in bringing this matter to a close? If it is resolved, something else will come along to do with reasonable accommodation. Autism and ADHD diagnoses are increasing. I could start listing off conditions. Obviously, the organisations have rules, as do the countries with the best international practice, but this is all about giving the kids extra time. Could there be a rule book to set out timeframes for certain conditions? It sounds like that would be sectioning people off, but anything that works would make this much easier for the organisations and the schools. There could be a booklet. Unfortunately, we have to class people by certain criteria. Under the booklet, if someone had X, Y and Z, he or she would get an extra ten minutes. Would doing it in this way assist matters and make the system fairer?

I have put a great deal to the witnesses. I am not expecting a million answers.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I will try to go through the issues the Deputy raised. He referred to the role of teachers. I will ask my colleague Ms O’Callaghan to address that matter.

Deputy Pat Buckley

The teachers will probably kill me. They are under enough stress as it is without more being put on them.

Ms Andrea Feeney

They are involved already because they identify students in respect of whom they believe there might be particular problems that they need to address. They have some skills in doing that.

Regarding joined-up thinking, we work collaboratively with all of our stakeholders, particularly school authorities in terms of them implementing the scheme at the coalface at school level. We also work closely with representative organisations, including the Union of Students in Ireland, the Dyslexia Association of Ireland and other representatives of students with special educational needs. They will all have a role in the review.

I will leave the question of what the committee can do to the committee.

Regarding the review process, have faith in the work we have been doing. We have not waited for time to elapse before putting measures in place. The review of the scheme started with our board of commissioners in 2015. Back then, the scheme was very different and difficult. We had many refusals every year, we had a great deal of disappointment and we did not have continuity between junior cycle and the leaving certificate. A student was assessed at junior cycle but did not have a guarantee that he or she would have the same supports at senior cycle. That student would have to be assessed again at senior cycle. This is where the change happened in the 2016-17 year.

The Deputy mentioned compartmentalising. We have moved away from compartmentalising. Prior to the reform in the 2016-17 year, the scheme was compartmentalised. This was to the detriment of students with special educational needs. Broadening the basis of identification of students has increased the number of students accommodated within the scheme. This will be a challenging matter to return to, notwithstanding that there are students with particular needs. Dyslexia is a learning difficulty, but there are people with other learning difficulties who would also benefit from additional time were that accommodation available.

Not to pre-empt the review process, but we need a bit of time to engage in the review, take stock of where we are, look at international best practice and consider the recommendations of the 2009 group. That group recommended removing two parts of the leaving certificate examination, namely, the spelling and grammar waiver and the additional time for all students. There is an opportunity to do that. In case the committee thinks this is in the never-never, it will take some time, but the SEC has demonstrated the changes we have already made to the scheme. I mentioned them earlier. Others have been made along the way. We have shown that the scheme can be responsive to the needs of the students whom we are trying to serve when conducting State examinations.

Perhaps my colleague wishes to discuss the role of teachers in the scheme.

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

In a general sense, we aim to support teachers’ capacity to support school inclusion. A range of professional development programmes are available for teachers, including ones delivered by NEPS, on supporting children and young people with literacy difficulties, including dyslexia. The NCSE also provides a range of programmes. As Ms Feeney stated, the identification of need and the provision of assistive technology within the classroom drive students’ eligibility for the accommodation at examine time. I am not sure whether I have answered the Deputy.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I thank the witnesses for their answers. I was fortunate enough to sit on the autism committee. A good deal of material came in regarding education and accessing services. That we are having this conversation is great. I suspect that people on the other side of the table sometimes think that, when they appear before a committee, they will get ripped apart and there will be a big competition, but many of these discussions involve us sharing our knowledge and ideas and asking witnesses whether we can assist them in any way.

Unfortunately, I am nowhere near where I would like to be, but that is a work in progress. I acknowledge the comments on the review and I respect Ms Feeney’s remarks about the review starting in 2015, its changes being launched in 2016 and it evolving all the time. That is great, as a review is normally shelved after a year or two and forgotten about. When we then consider the matter again after five or ten years, we see we are miles behind. What Ms Feeney set out was a good sign. However, I do not know where we are going to go. I loved her honesty when she told us to have patience because this is an ongoing process and we had to keep watching it. Please God, we will be able to do so.

I am at a loss trying to find a balance in progressing this situation. I do not like sectioning off cohorts of people, but let us face facts. If one cohort gets X, another will ask why it cannot get the same. We will then run into the same barriers.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I mentioned the reform in the 2016-17 year.

We had moved on to the next stage of the review that was initiated by our board of commissioners. This next stage related to assistive technology. Covid threw all of us off balance at that stage. Work that had been done on such technology was paused. We were also working on the deferred examinations at leaving certificate level. It has been part of an ongoing, phased approach to introducing as many changes and improvements to the scheme as we can, in a responsive way, without waiting for the end, so to speak.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Yes, and that has to be acknowledged too. I thank Ms Feeney.

Senator Tim Lombard

People would have some hope that there will be changes when the review begins. If we go back to the reports from 2000 or 2008, we can see how society, technology and the world has changed in the interim. The 2008 report has been mentioned. Right or wrong, pieces can be picked out of it to support my argument or that of the witnesses. Technology was not a key factor back then. Things have changed completely. That is the key issue. The world has moved on. The iPhone I have in front of me would have been a superstar of a machine 20 years ago. It would have been like something from NASA. This is how the world has moved. Technology is a part of the solution. It is a really important instigator to allow us to ensure that we can get more appropriate accommodations, to make sure we get students through the school cycle in an appropriate way.

In the context of the proposed changes, are there timelines for these reviews? In the next few months, approximately 140,000 students will sit State examinations. Of those, 10% have some level of dyslexia. Where is the pathway to make sure that they will perhaps have a review at some stage that might be of benefit to them? The timelines relating to this are very important. I appreciate that Covid threw out of whack in the context of the relating to assistive technology. The pandemic happened a few years ago now. Can I have clarity on when these reviews will happen, the timelines relating to them and when their findings will be implemented? Will Ms Feeney give an indication as to the who, when, where and what of the consultations involved? Will they be open and face to face or will it be a roadshow model? How are we going to have those engagements? That engagement is very important. I admire in so many ways parents for their ability to advocate for their dyslexic children. They fight for them day in, day out, and will do so until their children have completed third level. This is about trying to make sure that those children can reach their potential. When a basic barrier is put in front of them it becomes very emotive. Can I have some clarification about matters stand in that regard?

Another issue that should be looked at in the review is when clearance is given for the granting of reasonable accommodations for examinations. If a student going into first year has to wait until the start of third year to get clarification on whether they will have a reasonable accommodation granted, that is still a stress for the parent and the student. They have no idea where they are for the first two years. The reasonable accommodations are assumed. Students are told that it will be okay, but they get nothing in writing to that effect. The commission only kicks in in the third year because that is a State examination year. That does not work and it needs to change. This is a fundamental issue that needs to be looked at.

There is also a need to consider that to which I refer in the context of maths. Maths has been forgotten in this debate. When people talk about dyslexic children, they talk about reading, English and the Irish waiver. They do not understand the implications of wordy maths questions and the difficulties they pose for children with dyslexia. This has been totally forgotten by the Department. A completely different focus is needed. It has been proven to me continuously that this needs to be looked at. I am not sure if the will is there to do so. I would like clarity on this. I fundamentally believe that this is really important for us. The maths question is the fifth leg of the stool. It has not been addressed. In fact, it has been forgotten.

When it comes to additional time, nobody can tell me that a person with a C-Pen reader can do it at the same level as a person who can read it perfectly. It basically does not work. The C-Pen is a fantastic and wonderful tool, but it does not operate at the same speed. Students are being taught to use these pens because it is about using them faster. We are teaching students to work C-Pens faster, because they cannot read the maths, so that they can do their junior certificate examinations. We cannot do this. They should be learning maths instead of trying to operate the technology that allows them to read faster.

There is much that can be changed quickly. That is why the review is so important. I ask Ms Feeney to come back to me with indications as to when we will have meaningful progress.

Ms Andrea Feeney

I will start with the technology question. I agree with much of what the Senator said about where we need to be. A great deal is happening. Our statistics from recent years show that the number of scribes has reduced and the number of students using word processors has increased, in inverse proportion. The number of students using reading pens has increased and the number of students looking to use assistive technology in the examinations has also increased. We brought in our digital paper for visually impaired students-----

Senator Tim Lombard

But the assistive technology and the C-Pens were not there previously so if one starts from a very low base there is bound to be an increase.

Ms Andrea Feeney

We would like to see that. A perspective from the review is to encourage assistive technology in the examinations because it supports students' independence. In the future, students will have the ability to read using a digital version of an examination paper that can do text to speech. They will be able to type their answers using a laptop because they will have the skills to do so. That is exactly where we want the scheme to be, while still providing for students who are not able to engage with those forms of technology. That is a core tenet of the review process.

Regarding maths, the role of the State Examinations Commission is to assess the subject specification. The subject specification for project maths is designed in a particular way. Issues of inclusion and equity are considered in the design space. Maths is being reviewed in the context of senior cycle redevelopment and those issues - such as the reading and readability of the papers - need to be considered through that redesign process. That is in a different review, not the one I am referring to.

Senator Tim Lombard

Which review is that?

Ms Andrea Feeney

That is in the senior cycle redevelopment space.

Senator Tim Lombard

And that is in the Department?

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

Yes.

Senator Tim Lombard

The Department might comment on that in a moment.

Ms Andrea Feeney

Regarding the review and the timelines, I mentioned that the terms of reference and the construct - the governance and oversight arrangements - are with our board. We will be running examinations over the summer, so, realistically, it will be September when we will be starting in earnest with the review process. We will have an internal steering group but it will have a lot of external members. There will be experts in special educational needs and policy officials from the Department of Education.

We have identified some 30 key stakeholders across education and special needs that we need to consult during the review process. We hope that as much of that as possible will be face-to face consultation. We will get people around the table and have conversations and engagement with them. There will also be a research phase to the review. I cannot give the Senator a timeline at the moment. All I can say is what I said to Deputy Buckley, which is that we will do things as quickly as we can but in this space we have to work with the system. The SEC does not deliver a service to the system in an of itself. It works with the education system to provide the State examination service. We need to bring all of our stakeholders with us in terms of the delivery of the service. I cannot be specific on timelines at the moment.

Senator Tim Lombard

Are we talking about a ten-year, a two-year or a six-month process?

Ms Andrea Feeney

No, somewhat less than ten years. We are not talking about a very lengthy and protracted ten-year process. I think it will take about two years to do justice to the process.

Senator Tim Lombard

Will the Department comment on the maths question?

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

As my colleague was saying, leaving certificate mathematics is part of an overall process of redevelopment at senior cycle that the Minister announced in March 2022. As the members may know, in September of last year she announced an accelerated roll-out of the programme. All subjects, including maths, will be redeveloped within that process.

A core aspect of that is shifting away from the heavy reliance on the terminal exam to introducing additional assessment components that will account for, I think, 40% of the overall mark. Obviously, there are broader issues in the context of appropriately testing students' skills and competencies, but part of it is about spreading the assessment load in order that the reliance on the high-stakes terminal exam is lessened somewhat. The additional assessment components are a part of the redevelopment. They allow students to display their learning outside the exam hall and spread the workload through the academic year.

Senator Tim Lombard

I get the impression that review might not take into consideration my issue with the junior certificate, in particular when it comes to how maths questions are worded, how they have been tied together with the new profile of maths and how everything is put together. In many ways, that review does not solve the issue that I have. When it comes to the junior certificate in particular and the leaving certificate afterwards, how maths questions are put together could be argued to be actively discriminating against people with reading disabilities.

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

The junior cycle framework, in curriculum terms, is a relatively recent development. It began to be introduced on a phased basis in about 2015. Many of the subject specifications at junior cycle are relatively new. Maths is one of those. Maths has been through a full cycle or possibly more than that. It is currently the subject of an early enactment review, which is being led by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. That process entails having focus-group-type consultation and engagement with schools on what the experience is with the subject specification. There is currently a review process of what is happening with junior cycle maths. What emerges from that will give a sense of the experience in schools and may shed some light on the issue that the Senator is talking about. I do not want to pre-empt the review and say that it will definitively produce something, but I take the Senator's point about the issue to which he referred. We need to let the early enactment review proceed and see what way it informs the process.

Senator Tim Lombard

Has Ms O'Callaghan an indication of the timeline for that review to be completed?

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

I want to say quarter 4 of this year but it may be slightly better than that. I can come back and confirm that for the Senator separately.

An Cathaoirleach

I have a couple of questions. It was stated earlier that will be extensive consultation and engagement with as broad a range of stakeholders as possible, including young people with special educational needs, their families and representatives. The SEC is finalising the terms of reference. What timeframe is it looking at to finish that?

Ms Andrea Feeney

As I was saying to Senator Lombard, we do not have a timeframe at the moment. It is tied into senior cycle redevelopment. The first examinations in the redeveloped senior cycle are in 2027, so we are looking at a two to three-year review process, starting in September 2024.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Department look at the exam scores for those who get assistance compared with those who do not? To be certain if something is working, I presume this would inform the process in the future. Will the witnesses outline if it is included in any of the assessments that are done?

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

I suppose the answer to that is "No". The Department does not have a sight of data on leaving certificate results broken down between those who have accommodations and those who do not. I am not sure if the SEC has that.

Ms Andrea Feeney

We do not routinely analyse it but those who are in receipt of the spelling and grammar waiver in the language subjects are subject to a modified marking scheme. Their results are marked in a different way to students who do not have the spelling and grammar waiver. Some external research has been done, not involving live examinations but mock examinations, that came up with a value of 10% associated with the potential impact of the spelling and grammar waiver.

An Cathaoirleach

That would all be part of other assessments that have been done throughout the process?

Ms Andrea Feeney

It is more that. When their work is marked, because they have a spelling and grammar waiver, any mistakes the student makes with spelling, punctuation and certain elements of grammar are discounted. They are seen by the marker but are not counted against the student. The result that they get is effectively marked out of 90 and then scaled up to 100 to give them the benefit of the spelling and grammar waiver. Maybe what the Cathaoirleach is alluding to is in subjects that involve more than one component.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Ms Andrea Feeney

As Ms O'Callaghan mentioned in the context of senior cycle redevelopment, the objective there is to have a broader range of assessment used to test students' knowledge, skills and competence, to give them the opportunity to demonstrate attainment outside the written examination, which should have a really positive benefit for many students with special educational needs, because it is not then associated with writing or reading. Writing and reading are associated with it, but it is not done in the hothouse of the examinations cost.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Department's role extend to examining the demand for assistance with State examinations? From our experience as Oireachtas Members, work appears to be needed in the area of the allocation of special educational needs. Does the Department collect data? What kind of data would it be? How is it conveyed to the SEC?

Ms Celeste O'Callaghan

At the outset, I drew the distinction between the policy role and the operational role. We would be conscious and aware of individual issues that would arise, which we would receive through various communications to the Department. We would often be in contact with the SEC in that regard. We would also be conscious of the SEC's statutory remit and its operational responsibility for the State exams. In that sense, we would not have an interventionist role regarding specific issues in an ad hoc way. From a departmental perspective, the important thing for us is that the SEC is able to conduct the forthcoming review. I know it has commenced planning in that regard. I think it has been clearly mentioned by Ms Feeney and commented on by members that there would be extensive consultation within that review that would take account of the views of all stakeholders, and that the review would be consulted in as timely a way as possible.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms O'Callaghan, Ms Feeney and Mr. Dolan for coming in to speak to us today. It has been informative.

Sitting suspended at 2.48 p.m. and resumed at 2.54 p.m.