Federal Constitutional Court
Testimonials: Court finds in favor of students with dyslexia
According to the Federal Constitutional Court, testimonials may be necessary in the interests of equal opportunities. However, they should not only be limited to dyslexics. photo
© Karl-Josef Hildenbrand/dpa
Does a reference to dyslexia and ungraded spelling put those affected at a disadvantage? Yes, says the Federal Constitutional Court. In principle this is justified, but not in every case.
“Spelling was not assessed.” Such a sentence in the Abitur certificate can be used by students with reading and spelling disorders (dyslexia). It reveals disability-related performance deficits. This affects constitutionally protected personal rights and can worsen the chances of success in applications.
The Federal Constitutional Court sees it all this way. And yet it ruled on Wednesday that testimonials of this kind could be constitutional and even necessary in the interests of equal opportunities.
However, the Karlsruhe judges also noted that testimonials should not only be limited to dyslexics. However, in the specific case of three former high school graduates from Bavaria, that was the case.
Therefore, the highest German court ruled in their favor and overturned the Federal Administrative Court’s rulings to the contrary. The men should be given certificates without comments. (Az. 1 BvR 2577/15 etc.)
Why experts rate the verdict as a success
Representatives of professional associations see the ruling as a success because it recognizes dyslexia as a disability within the meaning of the Basic Law. This means that affected children have an urgent need for protection – including at school, said Gerd Schulte-Körne from the German Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy. The children must be given space to attend school and be evaluated according to their talents. “And there is an urgent need for action.”
Tanja Scherle, chairwoman of the Federal Association for Dyslexia and Dyscalculia, said that parents and those affected often do not dare to have a diagnosis made for fear of the consequences. The verdict is therefore “a very important moment” because it means those affected have rights for the disabled. The federal states responsible for school policy would now have to improve their respective regulations.
According to the Federal Association for Dyslexia and Dyscalculia, around twelve percent of the population in Germany is affected by at least one of the impairments. In the case of dyscalculia or arithmetic disorder, arithmetic skills are impaired, although this cannot be explained solely by a reduction in intelligence or inappropriate schooling.
As the Constitutional Court argues
The ruling could lead to more testimonials. Because the court made it clear that this creates transparency. This applies particularly with regard to the Abitur as proof of general university entrance qualification, said President Stephan Harbarth.
According to the explanations, if services not provided are disclosed in individual cases, this increases the significance and comparability of the certificates – and there is a public interest in this. This is the only way employers, for example, could actually compare their different performance abilities when selecting applicants. This is also in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
However, it is not acceptable for students with other disabilities to not receive any references to their certificates even though individual partial achievements were not evaluated. This is how things were handled in Bavaria during the period in question. The same applies if teachers, at their own discretion, do not evaluate spelling performance in natural science subjects, for example, without disclosing this in the certificate.
“We will of course analyze and evaluate the judgment carefully and take up suggestions for further development,” said the Bavarian Minister of Education Anna Stolz (Free Voters). A spokesman explained that the administrative practice in question has no longer been practiced in the Free State since 2016/17. The impairment itself is not disclosed in any case, but only the fact that (partial) services were not provided or evaluated. The ministry therefore sees the current approach as basically confirmed.
What the background is
The topic is about so-called banknote protection, which many federal states – including Bavaria – enable. Then, upon request, teachers do not allow the spelling to be included in the grades and note in the certificate that they assessed the performance differently.
In addition, people with disabilities receive “compensation for disadvantages” in school exams. For dyslexics, for example, this can mean that they have more time to write a paper.
The three Bavarian students graduated from high school in 2010. They felt they were being discriminated against by the testimonials and had sued the courts. The Federal Administrative Court rejected them in 2015. They filed constitutional complaints against it.
When announcing the verdict, Constitutional Judge Josef Christ noted that the task of teaching spelling rules and evaluating them in schools had not become obsolete through the development of self-learning spelling programs. “Proofing programs cannot completely compensate for spelling deficiencies.” It is therefore not only justifiable, but obvious, to make spelling skills part of the general university entrance qualification conveyed by the Abitur.