Vol. 365 No. 8
asked the Minister for Education if he is aware of the opposition of the Dyslexia Association of Ireland to his Department's proposal to endorse the leaving certificate of candidates who have received special consideration because of a disability such as dyslexia; and whether he will have this proposal withdrawn.
6.
asked the Minister for Education the reason dyslexic children who avail of special consideration in State examinations have this fact endorsed on their certificates; if this procedure is applied to persons with other forms of disability; his views on the fairness of this treatment; if he will arrange to have the practice discontinued; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
34.
asked the Minister for Education if he is aware of the widespread unease among parents of students with specific learning disabilities who, due to a circular from his Department, will now have their State examinations certificates specially endorsed; and if he will review this matter urgently in the light of the sensitive issues involved.
76.
asked the Minister for Education whether his Department feel that the proposed endorsement of certificates obtained by handicapped students who obtain special facilities relative to their handicap while sitting for the certificate examinations in 1986 represents a stigma on these students personally or a reflection on the certificate obtained by them or a disincentive to potential employers and/or other persons or institutions who might avail of their services; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
78.
asked the Minister for Education if he will withdraw circular S46/85 which seeks to attach special endorsements to the intermediate and leaving certificates of students, in view of its highly discriminatory nature; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
79.
asked the Minister for Education if he has received complaints from the Dyslexia Association of Ireland in relation to their concern in the matter of endorsement of State examination papers of disabled and dyslectic candidates; and the need for special consideration for those with specific learning disabilities at the certificate examinations; the proposals, if any, he has to ensure equity for all such candidates; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
80.
asked the Minister for Education if he is aware of the views of the Dyslexia Association of Ireland regarding the recent decision to endorse examination certificates; if he agrees that such endorsement is unnecessarily discriminatory; if he will review the matter; and if he will make a statement in this regard.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 6, 34, 76, 78, 79 and 80 together.
My Department have received a letter from the Dyslexia Association of Ireland welcoming the Department's recent circular letter on the special arrangement to be made at the certificate examinations for candidates suffering from disabilities, but seeking clarification of some of the proposals, in particular the proposal to endorse certificates in certain cases. I am aware that the association convened a special meeting to discuss the latter issue but I do not have a report of the meeting.
I should explain that the basic principle involved is that the integrity and acceptability of the certificates we award must be protected in the interests of all the candidates. It is the practice of the Department, as set out in the circular letter referred to, to give special consideration to examination candidates suffering from a disability. In cases where the award of a certificate in such cases might be misleading to a prospective employer or educational institution, then it becomes necessary to add an appropriate endorsement. This would not be necessary in the case of a disability such as blindness or paraplegia which would be obvious to all. Where allowance is made in the marking for a disability such as a specific learning disability which would not be immediately apparent, then it behoves the Department to add an appropriate endorsement.
I wonder if the Minister and the Department understand the point these parents make and made to me personally — I am sure, other Deputies have been approached. Would the Minister not consider a point that is a cause of anguish to them, that children who have this disability, if they achieve this leaving certificate, will have the certificate devalued, apparently giving an attachment to it which will tell employers not to bother about it, that it is not worth the paper it is written on? Would the Minister reassure the House, before I ask him other questions, that that positively is not the Department's intention? If it is not the Department's intention, I wonder what the Department mean by giving a reply which uses the expression "a certificate which might be misleading to an employer". That would imply that the issue of a certificate with certain grades and certain subjects would tell an employer that the grades were something beyond the capacity of the candidate, in reality.
I should like the Deputy to know that the reply to the question is as approved by me. In the case of these children with these specific learning disabilities there is a special procedure for marking their examinations as a consequence of their disabilities. If that special procedure were not available the results from these pupils, probably in many cases, would be considerably below a true reflection of their intellectual capacity. Nevertheless, there is a special procedure made available for them to assist them towards getting the Department's certificate. Those certificates in many cases are relied on by employers having regard to their face value, and the Department have to ensure that employers generally can be satisfied and happy with the integrity of the certificates.
In the case of the unfortunate children concerned, if the endorsement were not on the certificate and the certificate showed, for example, a high rate of achievement in the examination and was accepted at face value from somebody who did not suffer from any apparent disability, and the employer engaged somebody in good faith on the basis of an unendorsed certificate and then found that the candidate's capacity to perform was not reflected on the certificate, the employer would immediately have serious doubts about the integrity of the Department's certificate. I appreciate there is a dilemma here and that in the resolution of it, like all dilemmas, somebody may be dissatisfied. I repeat my point that it is very important that the official State certification should have its own integrity and should not be unwittingly the cause of misleading prospective employers. The endorsement is not to downgrade the students concerned but merely to certify the realities of their particular situation.
I will put two questions to the Minister, which I will roll together. Would the Minister tell us exactly what this special consideration consists of? I put it to the Minister that that special consideration is not substantial enough to warrant an endorsement of this kind. Would the Minister explain how it is that this is necessary at all if, as he has told the House, the whole purpose of the thing is to reflect in the certificate the true intellectual capacity of the child? If the certificate is an effort to show the child's true intellectual capacity it cannot possibly mislead employers.
The objective of it is to show the true intellectual capacity bearing in mind that there is a learning disability. The employer is entitled to be made aware of that and he can very quickly ascertain and get to know the true intellectual capacity of the applicant. There would not be any question of anybody being misled. The certificate is the proof of the true intellectual capacity of the child, but it also indicates that there is a handicap present. In the case of specific learning difficulties, the level of difficulty can be certified by way of appropriate medical or psychological certification to the Department, and appropriate special arrangements are made. They vary from case to case. For instance, the candidate can be allowed to dictate his answers on a tape recorder and may be given the questions on tape. That is one instance. Special consideration is given in the marking of these papers. They are usually marked by an experienced examiner, normally an inspector, who would have been made aware in advance, on the basis of an application from the school, of the disability of the pupil concerned.
I know a bit about this disability. Does the Minister not recognise that in making this concession in regard to marking he is endeavouring to deal with a technical type of situation, but he is undoing that effort to deal with this problem by the endorsement? Would he consider that aspect seriously? His good intentions or the good intentions of the Department to deal with this special type of situation are being undone by the endorsement on the leaving certificate; and does he not think that he is making far too much of the aspect of it to which he referred, that employers might be misled if the endorsement was not there? Would he therefore consider if that is not a real difficulty in this regard? In most cases the candidates to be interviewed would bring the particular circumstances to the attention of the employers in their own interest. May I join with Deputy Kelly and others in asking the Minister to have a serious rethink on this?
I can assure the Deputy that I gave this matter much consideration before approving the new procedures. I was well aware of the emotive nature of the considerations involved and that we would be open to the charge made here that we are prejudicing these students and undoing the special arrangements made for them. I do not think so. The special arrangements will be reflected in the end result. There is logic in that. These pupils have special learning disabilities. If we had not the special arrangements for examining them, in most cases they would not be able to obtain any certificate at all. Having made the special arrangements for examination, it is only equitable, so far as the validity of the State certification is concerned, that it would reflect the fact that special arrangements had to be made for these people. That need not prejudice them in their employment opportunities because if the inherent dyslexic incapacity is there, an employer who wants to engage them will engage them, but he will not be able to say that he was misled by the certification or documentation produced.
With regard to the certificate itself, it is important that on its face it should be a document which can be relied on. That has been a consideration of which I have had to take account on the one side. I had also to look at the other side to see if these pupils were being prejudiced in any way. Quite honestly, I cannot see that they are being prejudiced. What is being said on the certificate is not anything about them that would not subsequently become available or known to people who might have to rely on the certificate concerned but who, if they subsequently became so aware, might begin to cast doubts on the bona fides of the Department's approach.
What the Minister says would be valid in a situation in which there was competition by firms to get people into jobs. The reverse is the case. There are literally thousands of applications for every job. In the process of selecting possible interviewees, employers automatically, I think, will eliminate those whose certificates refer to special consideration. Before these people get to the point of being interviewed they will have been discriminated against in a way which they cannot fight or against which they cannot protest.
A question, please, Deputy.
That is where the real discrimination lies. In view of the large number of questions put down on this issue, I urge the Minister to re-examine the position. A fairly substantial submission has been made by the Dyslexia Association of Ireland on this question to his Department, which the Minister may not have received yet.
Certainly, I should be happy to arrange a meeting between that association and my officials if the association feel they would like to discuss the matter further. As I have said, there is an essential dilemma here which falls to somebody to resolve. I feel that I have resolved it in the most equitable way possible, bearing in mind all the considerations to which I have adverted in the course of the earlier supplementary questions.
Might I point out that I put down Priority Question No. 34, which the Chair included with the other two questions? This again highlights the unfairness of the present system, in that the normal question for oral answer can take precedence over the priority question. Therefore, the word "priority" has no meaning.
With regard to Priority Question No. 34, why was this circular issued in the first place? Why this new move within the Department? I am aware that the circular was issued in 1985, but it is affecting State examinations for the first time in 1986. Who initiated the demand and what was the need for this circular?
Would the Minister not accept that the student in question — and I am aware that this endorsement deals with any other learning or psychological disability also — has enough disadvantages in life without having to cope for the rest of his or her career with a specially endorsed, marked certification of examination results? As an educationist, I think it is unfair and discriminatory to the student involved.
There is a certain lack of logic there. In the case of a blind candidate, for instance, it would be quite clear to an employer or to anybody perusing the certificate that it was received under a special arrangement. In the case of the dyslexic student, there is no obvious disability but nevertheless a disability is there. The certificate equalises matters in regard to other students. It recognises the unfortunate reality that that pupil suffers from this particular defect.
The matter has been under consideration in our Department for some time. We were unhappy about the status of certificates issued to such students without having this endorsement. After much debate and consideration internally, I came to the conclusion, bearing all relative factors in mind, that the endorsement was the most equitable thing which could be done because of all the factors concerned, that it would not prejudice the student concerned. The certificate does not draw attention to something which is not there and is not giving to the student a disability which does not exist. No amount of whitewashed paper will remove the burden that that places on the unfortunate student. I have to be sure that the State certification is valid.
Why this new move? What has led to the issue of this circular? In the light of the very sensitive nature of the issue, would the Minister agree to review the matter in time for the coming State examinations?
I have already told the Deputy why the arrangements are being made this year. This followed a review which had been going on for some time within my Department. We were aware that the certificates were being awarded without endorsement and were uneasy about their value and validity. The present decision is the culmination of an internal policy review, no more than that. I shall, of course, meet the members of the association and arrange with my officials to discuss the matter in detail with them. I shall consult them myself if that would be of any assistance. In that sense, I will be reviewing the matter. I think we should wait and hear what they have to say.
How many complaints did the Minister receive from employers who have been misled by the old certificate which did not carry the endorsement even if time or special consideration was apparently being given, if I understand the Minister correctly?
I do not have that information and even if I had, it would not be relevant. The essential point is to protect the validity on the face of these certificates.
If my priority question had been taken as such, I should have had much more time to pursue the matter.
The Deputy should not go on complaining about this.
I shall not complain any more.
This is in accordance with an Order of the House.
We hope that will soon be changed. We must bear in mind that the purpose of education means many things, not just the issuing of certificates and the obtaining of jobs. It concerns many other matters embracing the whole person. Would the Minister not agree that it is unfair and discriminatory to put such a tag on a person forever? The word "endorsement" has a very special meaning. This endorsement is placed on the script which they would be given at the end of their examination.
It does not put anything unfair on those people. If there is unfairness, it arises not from the endorsement on the certificate but from any prejudiced position in which these students are placed arising from their unfortunate handicap. It is not because of anything done by my Department.
I call Question No. 3.
Would the Minister not agree that by placing an endorsement on the certificate he is enforcing discrimination against people with this disability? Would he not agree that the special consideration is provided precisely because the kind of examinations which we insist on our 15 year olds and 18 year olds taking discriminate against people with disabilities?
I am moving on to the next question.
The other side of the coin would be not to make any special arrangements.
