Hi all,
I know things always end up more complex in practice, but I've tried to think this issue through
and I just can't see how they can refuse alternative assessment (including shorter or untimed exams)
as a reasonable adjustment on the grounds of professional standards. Here's my reasoning - am I
going wrong somewhere?
Paragraph 5.73 of the DDA Post-16 Code of Practice says, "The requirement for students studying for
a law degree to demonstrate a particular standard of knowledge of certain areas of law in order to
obtain the degree is a competence standard."
5.74 then says, "A requirement that a person completes a test in a certain time period is not a
competence standard unless the competence being tested is the ability to do something within a
limited time period."
Finally, it's clear that reasonable adjustments must be made to the means of assessing whether
someone has a particular level of competence.
Putting these together surely shows that requiring some limited time exams could only be justified
if there is a genuine competence standard for a law degree that involves completing tasks in a
particular time period. I can't see anything in the Joint Statement which suggests there's such a
competence standard. (In addition, I think the example in 5.73 suggests that the possibility of
testing knowledge of certain areas of law in different ways was seen as a good illustration of the
distinction between the competence standard itself and the means of assessing it.)
The only other reason I can imagine for saying that exams are necessary for assessing the relevant
knowledge and skills is to guard against plagiarism: but that's a very different argument from
saying timed assessment tasks are necessary. If the worry is plagiarism, shorter exams - perhaps on
different days - might be a way to tackle it.
I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts, because it's not only in relation to professional
standards that this argument around exams comes up!
All the best,
Katya
____________________________________________
Katya Hosking (029) 2087 9218
Accessible Curriculum Officer
Registry, Cardiff University
30-36 Newport Road, Cardiff CF24 0DE
www.cardiff.ac.uk/learning/themes/access/index.html
>>> Paul Hubert <[log in to unmask]> 06/12/2007 17:27:37 >>>
If I may quote the Law Society website:
"The Joint Statement on Qualifying Law Degrees (PDF 75K), prepared jointly by the Law Society and
the Bar Council, sets out the conditions a law degree course must meet in order to be termed a
'qualifying law degree'; the latest version was approved by the Lord Chancellor recently, and came
into effect for all law degrees commenced after 1 September 2001."
You can find the statement at
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/becomingacademicjointstate.pdf. It doesn't say
'there must be exams'. However I think the issue might be whether a student can demonstrate the
required knowledge and skills without any assessments in timed conditions (i.e. exams and in-class
tests). There is a tension over this. However we are currently looking at this issue too, after a
recommendation on disability grounds of alternative assessments in all subjects.
Best wishes,
Paul
(Student Advisor, Kent Law School)
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Silver, Liz
Sent: 06 December 2007 17:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Law Society and alternatives to exams
Hiya,
Wondered if anyone has come across this issue... one of our students doing an undergraduate LLB Law
course really needs an alternative assessment method to three hour exams. Due to her condition she
cannot sit for that long and giving her rest breaks etc does not resolve the issues for her. There
is a possibility she could do some shorter exams, and there is going to be more discussion on that
option. But the School are saying that the Law Society insist that there have to be exams for the
degree to be recognised as a qualification on the way to becoming a solicitor etc. Words such as
'professional standards etc are being used.
I have already talked about the DDA and reasonable adjustments etc etc and discussion is at a very
early stage. but if anyone has come across this or a similar situation please do let me know. It
would be very useful to be able to cite any precedents.
Cheers,
Liz
Liz Silver
Disability Officer
Student Support Services
Nottingham Trent University
Working Monday to Thursday
Phone: 0115 848 4495
Minicom: 18001 0115 848 4495
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and confidential
information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a
copy to anyone. In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and
information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University
shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University.
Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are
virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are
actually virus free. This is in keeping with good computing practice.
|