Parents of boy with autism threaten court action over ‘ambiguous’ assessment criteria

The parents of a 15-year-old autistic boy have taken the MATSEC board to court, claiming that ambiguous assessment criteria risk denying their son the possibility of obtaining a Secondary Education Applied Certificate (SEAC) in Agribusiness.

This emerges from a judicial protest filed earlier this month by the couple, who are not being named to avoid exposing their son to possible secondary victimisation, against the MATSEC board, the University of Malta and the Ministry for Education, Sport, Youth, Research and Innovation.

The plaintiffs, through their lawyer, Rita Mifsud, are arguing that a clause in the SEAC Vocational Subjects policy document of 2019, issued by the University and the MATSEC examination board, contains ambiguous criteria for the successful completion of a synoptic assessment, by stating only that “students must satisfy the examiner in the theory aspect (Knowledge and Comprehension criteria) and attain at least 50 marks, including marks obtained through the Application criteria carried forward from the Coursework.”

The vague clause, the parents said, violates a previous clause in the same policy document, which stipulates that “all assessments should be fair, reliable, valid and manageable.” The parents argue that their son was left uninformed as to what is expected of him in order to pass the assessment.

The fact that the son is also autistic meant that it was already very difficult for him to follow an educational programme, the plaintiffs said, adding that were he to fail his assessment on the basis of ambiguous criteria, he would suffer irremediable prejudice and be deprived of a “great opportunity, if not also a unique one in his circumstances, to successfully follow his chosen vocational career.”

The judicial protest calls upon the respondents to ensure that the criteria used in the synoptic assessment which their son would be appraised by, be the subject of “clear and transparent criteria which leave no room for any subjectivity and ambiguity,” warning that in the absence of this, further court action could follow.