University Council has passed a set of sweeping recommendations drawn up by a working group established to clarify the College examinations appeals process. The recommendations include measures to streamline the processing procedure of cases and to reduce the number of appeals heard by the Court of Academic Appeal.
The working group brought draft recommendations to the Undergraduate Studies Committee on December 8th.
A document obtained by The University Times outlines the recommendations that were passed by University Council. Most notably, the group recommends the clarification of “exceptional circumstances” in support of ad misericordiam appeals, giving more authority to the Court of Examiners to exclude students, granting access to the appeals forms online and reviewing the dates that the Court of Examiners, the Court of First Appeals, the Academic Appeals Committee meet and the date of publication of results in order to find a way to streamline the timetables.
The document includes a section which describes, in detail, the grounds for appeals that are accepted as “exceptional circumstances in support of an ad misericordiam appeal” and the necessary documentation to use as evidence of these circumstances. These details will be sent to students shortly, according to Molly Kenny, Education Officer of Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU).
It is hoped that this will improve understanding of what is expected of students during the appeals process and will allow cases to be processed quicker. Kenny emphasised the importance of the clarifications in the rules: “It means there is a definite protocol for each and every school to follow. Compared to in the past, more schools are stricter in their interpretation of the College Calendar whereas some have not.”
The working group was established in October after concerns were raised about the large increase in the volume of appeals the Academic Appeals Committee heard last year. While the number of cases presented to the Court of First Appeal saw a slight decrease, the appeals heard by the Academic Appeals Committee rose from 15 in 2013, to 37 in 2014 and finally reaching 47 in 2015.
Concerns were expressed over the proportion of these cases, 29 out of 47, that bypassed the Court of First Appeals. If an appeal to the Court of First Appeal is made late, it must then be heard by the Court of Academic Appeal. The number of appeals that went to the Court of Academic Appeal rose by over 21 per cent from 2014.
Speaking to The University Times, Kenny welcomed the recommendations: “This is absolutely of a massive benefit to students considering that currently, students lie in a massive limbo of whether their appeal will be granted or not”. She added: “Although some students might not have done that well in an exam and want to sit that exam in the Special Examinations period, and now won’t be allowed to because of this, there’re a lot for students who have real exceptional circumstances that previously wouldn’t have gotten through the appeals process because they didn’t have those medical records and they didn’t know what they needed.”
The working group was chaired by the Senior Lecturer and was comprised of the Senior Tutor, Dr Claire Laudet; the College Registrar, Prof Shane Allwright; Prof Jarlath Killeen; Marie McPeak; Anne O’Reilly; Leona Coady; Mary McMahon; Robert Otway-Norwood; Lorraine Norton; and Sarah Coyle.
The appendix to the calendar, drafted by the working group, clarifies the role of the Visitors as part of the appeals process. The Visitors, one of whom is always the Chancellor of the University, hear appeals made against decisions of the Board and other College bodies. The other Visitor, the Judicial Visitor, is typically an individual with extensive legal experience and is appointed by the government. The current Chancellor is Mary Robinson, while former High Court judge, Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark, is the Judicial Visitor.
According to the clarifications, “Appeals to the Visitors must not be seen as the next step in the Appeals process as that is contrary to the intention of the Statutes. In all but the most exceptional cases, the decision of the Academic Appeals Committee should be considered final.”
The document goes on to state that the “threshold for interference by the Visitors with an academic appeal must be high and should not involve a review of the final mark awarded”.
It adds: “The role of the Visitors in academic appeals is otherwise limited to those cases where it can be asserted that a procedural error in the Appeals procedures has created an injustice to the applicant.”
The working group will reconvene to ensure that the recommendations are implemented.
In an email statement to The University Times, Gillian Martin, Senior Lecturer, emphasised that the appeals process hasn’t changed: “The working group, which was set up to look at the perennial problems related to the number of appeals and the tight timeframe after the supplemental examinations, reviewed how the appeals procedures and the systems underlying their processing could be managed more effectively”.
Martin added that the recommendations were focused on the need to “streamline the processing of appeals” and “create guidelines which will ensure greater transparency for all parties”. The recommendations will also aim to “enhance available information” for students appealing decisions.
“The working group was guided by the need to maintain the integrity of the appeals process and to ensure equity and consistency of treatment”, Martin said.
