New research led by Dr. Kate James from Éirim: The National Assessment Agency (James & Hannah, 2017) suggests that the Spelling and Grammar Waiver (SGW), widely used in the Junior and Leaving Certificate, may provide an unfair advantage to students who receive it. This raises important questions about the fairness and validity of this exam accommodation.

What is the Spelling and Grammar Waiver?

The SGW was introduced in 2001 by the State Examinations Commission (SEC) for students with dyslexia and spelling difficulties. It is designed to ensure that these students are not disadvantaged and can demonstrate their true ability in exams.

In practice, students granted the SGW are not penalised for spelling or punctuation errors, which normally account for 10% of the English Language paper in the Leaving Certificate. Instead, their marks are pro-rated—they still receive credit for this 10%, based on their performance on the rest of the paper.

The SGW is now the most popular exam accommodation, with around 9% of all Leaving Certificate students using it, and numbers are rising each year. Until recently, however, no research had examined its fairness.

The Study

James and Hannah (2017) analysed a sample of mock Leaving Certificate papers, split between students who had been granted the SGW (due to dyslexia) and those who had not. Each paper was marked twice by experienced examiners: once applying the waiver, and again two months later without it. Crucially, examiners were unaware they were marking the same scripts twice.

The researchers reasoned that, if valid, an accommodation should help the intended group (students with dyslexia) without significantly benefiting others. For example, enlarging an exam paper helps a student with visual impairment, but offers little benefit to a student with normal vision. Similarly, reading an exam aloud supports students with reading difficulties but does not provide a large advantage to fluent readers.

Key Findings

The results were striking:

• All papers marked with a SGW—both from dyslexic and non-dyslexic students—received considerably higher grades than when marked without it.

• This suggests the SGW boosts results across the board, not just for students who genuinely need the accommodation.

• At the individual level, 61% of dyslexic students scored higher with the SGW, but 29% actually scored lower.

These findings cast doubt on the fairness of the SGW. Rather than simply levelling the playing field, the waiver may artificially inflate marks for all students who receive it, regardless of need.

Implications

As James and Hannah (2017) concluded:

“Given the high-stakes nature of the Leaving Certificate, it is imperative that everyone can have confidence in the interpretation of students’ results. We need to ensure that the marks a student receives are a true reflection of their performance and not an inflated view.”

With more students applying for the SGW each year, this research highlights the need for careful review by the State Examinations Commission to ensure fairness and validity in the exam system.