Who hires someone whose testimonial says, “Spelling assessment was waived”? Three former high school graduates from Bavaria with a dyslexia believe that many employers are put off by the notice. They appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court. “Anyone who reads this can only think that the applicant is too stupid and abysmal for everything,” it said in her statement, which lawyer Thomas Schneider read at the hearing in Karlsruhe on Wednesday. Experience has shown that a verdict is not expected for a few months.
In order to give people with disabilities a chance in school examinations, they receive “disadvantage compensation”. For dyslexics, for example, this can mean that they have more time to write. In many federal states, such as Bavaria, there is also the option of so-called grade protection. Upon request, the teachers will not include the spelling in the grades. They note in the certificate that they rated the performance differently. According to the school authorities, this should ensure the validity of certificates, said the chairman of the First Senate, Stephan Harbarth.
sense of discrimination
The three Bavarian students, who graduated from high school in 2010, see themselves as discriminated against by the testimony and complained to the authorities. In 2015, the Federal Administrative Court rejected them because, in its opinion, there was no entitlement to grade protection without its documentation in the certificate.
In the hearing before the Constitutional Court, the men reiterated in their statement that the comments restrict them in their professional lives. “It’s like getting a stamp that says, Careful, do you really want to hire me?”
The Bavarian Minister of Education, Michael Piazolo (free voters), argued that the comments on the testimonials created the necessary transparency, deviating from the general assessment standard. This is important because diplomas in particular have to be objectively comparable. The Bavarian legal situation is not unique, several other federal states handle it similarly.
Simple relief measure?
The lawyer for the plaintiffs questioned the distinction between equalization of grades and protection of grades. He sees no difference between a remedial measure such as a laptop that automatically takes over the spelling check and not evaluating the spelling. The Senate also asked the Bavarian state government many questions about the distinction between disadvantage compensation, grade protection and what is sorted where. One of the topics was the role that modern technology such as language assistants and spelling programs play in the measures.
The President of the German Teachers’ Association, Heinz-Peter Meidinger, emphasized that everything is done in schools to avoid discrimination. As a rule, schoolchildren do not point fingers at those affected or are jealous of the aid measures. Almost every class now has someone with dyslexia.
3.4 percent of schoolchildren in Bavaria have a reading and spelling disorder, said the reporting constitutional judge, Josef Christ. According to the Federal Association for Dyslexia and Dyscalculia, around twelve percent of the population in Germany are affected by at least one of the impairments.
parents worried
Tanja Scherle, chairwoman of this federal association and Bavarian state chairwoman, spoke of many unsettled parents. When deciding whether to apply for grade protection and thus accept a certificate, they face the big question: “Am I spoiling my child’s future?” said the mother of three dyslexics.
The association’s lawyer, Johannes Mierau, pointed out that the testimonials thwarted fundamental rights. The Basic Law prohibits discriminating against people with disabilities. It is also recognized that they have a right to equal opportunity in examinations.
For many employers, the “warning” on the certificate is not important, said Daike Witt from the Central Association of German Crafts. Selection decisions in the working world are often more complex. If spelling is important for a job, it could also be tested in special aptitude tests.
Announcement of the court Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of July 29, 2015 (Az. 6 C 35.14) Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of July 29, 2015 (Az. 6 C 33.14)
