A frustrated mother, who has requested that her dyslexic son use a computer when sitting for his ‘O’ levels for the past four years, was informed by a member of the Matsec Board that since they had never granted a similar request, they did not want to create a precedent.

The mother has been trying for almost four years to have her request for a reader and use of a computer granted. However, after numerous letters dating back to 2003 and endless phone calls, she was not successful and her son is sitting for his O level exams without a reader or a computer.

She explained that according to the psychologists’ assessment, her son has a reading accuracy of a 10-year-old+one month and the reading speed of a seven-year-old+seven months. However, she was told by the Matsec Board that according to their criteria, the cut-off age for a reader is the reading accuracy of a 10-year-old.

She started sending e-mails requesting the use of a computer during his O level exams to the Director of the Curriculum Management in early 2003.

In her reply, the Director told her to refer to a document titled “Guidelines for Special Examination Arrangements for Candidates with Particular Requirements” that was published by the Ministry of Education in 2002.

The mother said that when she approached the board and asked what the usual procedure was, she was told that the university board had their own set of criteria on which they based their decision.

“However, I have never seen a copy of this criteria – and it seems that no one else outside the board has seen them,” she said.

Furthermore, she said, when the board is in a dilemma they said that they fall back on the access arrangements for exams issued in the UK by the Joint Council for Qualifications.

“However, they are still using the 2003 edition and not the updated version of October 2006 to September 2007 which clearly states when a word processor should be used,” she said.

“I was informed by a member of the Matsec Board that, so far, they had never granted a word processor to be used in a Matsec ‘O’ level and they did not want to create a precedent with my son,” she said.

According to the Ministry for Education, there were 66 requests in 2007 from dyslexic candidates for a reader at SEC level – of these, 56 were granted. There were no requests to use a word processor.

However, the mother has in her possession a letter issued by the Examinations Department granting a dyslexic student’s request to use a word processor in the EDEXCEL London Examinations of June 2007.

She pointed out that she had suggested to the Matsec Board that they let the examiners of the oral examinations know that her son was dyslexic.

“However, they refused saying they did not want to inform them that my son was dyslexic. I have nothing to hide and I am proud of my son – there is no reason why I would want to hide the fact that he is dyslexic,” she said.

She was told that the examiners were only informed if students stammered or had auditory problems.

“When my son went for his orals he had to read out a paragraph, which he read very slowly – don’t forget that he has the reading speed of a seven-year-old+seven months. He came out livid because the examiner lost interest as soon as he started reading and began shuffling things around on his desk, totally ignoring him,” the mother said.

“Even though the examiner’s behaviour was not at all professional, had he been informed that my son was dyslexic he would have understood and perhaps been more considerate,” she added.

In April 2004, she sent another letter to the Director of the Matsec Board explaining the situation. The mother said that in the document, it was stated “you may request the use of a word processor where this is the candidate’s usual method of communication”.

She explained in the letter that after her son had been using a computer in his lessons for at least a year, his work and presentation skills had improved considerably.

The document also suggested that the Examination Authority be contacted as early as possible “to discuss the possible approaches”.

She received a reply telling her that her query would be forwarded to the Special Needs Committee of the university and that “the committee will communicate its decision to you in due course.”

However, she was informed that she could only make a request for the word processor or reader together with the application of the Matsec exams in November.

In October 2005, she sent a letter to the University of Malta rector at that time, Roger Ellul Micallef, again explaining the situation.

She received a reply almost three months later in December and was told that the university required a “full application of the condition of the candidate sitting for the examination is submitted, fully documented by appropriate specialist certification, with the application for the examination”.

In her reply the mother pointed out that her queries had not been answered at all.

In another letter from the university dated 16 March 2006, she was told that the certification received needed to be updated.

Furthermore, the letter said, “it is not always the case that arrangements made by the school are automatically applied by the university.”

In February 2006, the mother sent another letter to the Matsec Board pointing out that although she had been promised a reply, two years had passed and she still had not received it.

Seven months later, in November, she received a reply from the Special Needs Committee.

They informed her that her son would be awarded 25 per cent extra time, that his spelling mistakes would not be penalised in non-language subjects but that the request for a reader and a word processor were not granted “because your test results do not meet the criteria followed by the board”.

“However, the extra time is useless. My son did not even make use of the extra time he was granted since his reading speed is so slow that he tends to forget what was said at the beginning of the paragraph,” she said.

The mother said that she had even approached the National Commission for Persons with a Disability (KNPD) to try and find a solution for her son but received a reply stating that “the Commission regrets it is unable to take further consideration of your claim”.

In April 2007 she turned to the University Ombudsman for help. Almost immediately, she received a reply informing her that she was “justified in asking for the use of the word processor in the examination”.

The letter from the ombudsman was addressed to the University Registrar and made a strong and urgent recommendation before the board in the boy’s favour.

As a last resort, the mother filed a complaint with the Ombudsman. He replied that his office was not in a position to determine her case but pointed out that “policies should at least in future be accessible to those who need information”.

The mother expressed her frustration at the situation, adding that this situation was not allowing her son to compete with other students on a level playing field.

“The situation should be dealt with immediately and parents should have the opportunity to apply for special arrangements as soon as the students choose their subjects in sixth form. At the moment, they only know of the arrangements almost on the eve of their exam – something that does not help with exam stress,” she said.