Reply to the Complaints Board to the Response of Eursc, by Helen Ryan

Helen requested the orders listed at paragraph 3 of her Appeal.

Save where expressly accepted or admitted herein each and every claim of law or fact made by eursc is disputed.

As preliminary points Helen wishes to plead that she has not had a full copy of the eursc defence and as such has been unable to prepare her reply.

Helen refers to the email of 19th September at 2.39pm wherein she wrote to the Registrar as follows

“Dear Sir,

Thank you for your reply.

Helen has formally requested an interim hearing and an amendment to the timetable.

Helen submitted to you as Registrar as follows"Article 17 states that the observations of the defendant SHALL be communicated to the Applicant.

The observations of the eursc include references to and incorporate certain documents. These have not been provided to Helen to date.

These references and annexes are either therefore excluded as not being "observations" within the meaning of Article 17 or they MUST under Article 17 be communicated to us.

To date they have neither been excluded nor communicated. As such the Rules have not been followed to the prejudice of Helen.

Article 16 allows for an Article 34 application where there is a "real risk of absence of effectiveness of the right to appeal".

Not being in possession of the full observations of the Defendant and in particular the expert evidence and the legal precedent both relied on by the Defendant, nor knowing that they are excluded, places Helen at a "real risk", of not being able to state her case.

Article 16 does not limit Article 34 cases to "merits", but to "effectiveness of the right to appeal".

Article 29 provides for possible guidance. The current guidance issued by the Complaints Board does not deal with the issue.

Nonetheless Article 30 provides the ability of the Complaints Board to issue derogations therefrom.

In summary, either Helen has the right to obtain the full eursc case in its defence, and she can make her reply, or Helen is denied access to the defence and her ability to mount an effective appeal is non existant. This is simple first principles of natural justice."

Helen therefore again submitted to you as Registrar, a formal request for a ruling by the Complaints Board on the issue of the eursc defence being made available to Helen or a ruling declaring the eursc defence, insofar as it relates the two withheld annexes, as inadmissable, and Helen requested a consequential revision to the timetable for Helen to submit her reply.

Helen has stated that It is impossible for her to prepare a full reply without either having the documents or knowing they are excluded. The Complaints Board must in the interests of natural justice and procedural fairness make a decision on this. Not to do so fundamentally damages Helens ability to make an effective appeal.

Your reply below is grossly inadequate. Can I please have a reasoned decision of the Complaints Board supporting the assertion you make "that the written procedure is not admissible with respect to procedural questions", an assertion which Helen has formally challenged and upon which she has sought a ruling of the Complaints Board.

At present it appears that you as Registrar and/or the Complaints Board are making up interpretations of the Rules Of Procedure on an ad hoc basis, and you and/or the Complaints Board are making judicial decisions but without providing any reasoning for your decisions. Neither of which are legitimate or defendable processes for a judicial authority to adopt and run counter to basic principles of natural justice and administrative law.

Helen requests by return a formal reasoned decision of the Complaints Board, including now in relation to timing of her response.”

Helen also incorporates herein each of the communications with the Registrar on the issue, including specifically communications on

30th August, 4th-6th September, and 10th September -19th September, copies of which are in the possession of the Complaints Board Registrar.

Specifically Helen wishes to plead that she made an Application for interim relief which has neither been heard nor has a reasoned decision dismissing it been provided.

Helen restates her request for interim orders and requests the opportunity to fully present her case in writing, subsequent to knowing the defence of eursc. Without having two crucial pieces of eursc’s defence, Helen has been unable to have an effective right of appeal.

Notwithstanding the prejudice to Helen’s effective right of appeal, Helen states her case below. Her case is however expressly subject to the reservation that she has not had the full eursc defence and therefore her reply is inevitably compromised in terms of content and in terms of the time available to her to prepare her case.

The eursc state that Helen seeks “annulment of the mark awarded for the chemistry written examination in the Baccalaureate and annulment of the decision of the Chairman of the Baccalaureate Examining Board of 6 August 2012 whereby her administrative appeal was rejected.”

eursc have failed to respond to a significant part of the case made and the orders sought. Specifically, Helen sought significantly more than an annulment of her mark and an annulment of the appeal decision. Helen sought orders by the Complaints Board regarding the procedural fairness and lawfulness of the procedures adopted by the eursc affecting herself and other students and impacting on the entirety of the Baccalaureate 2012, or in the alternative chemistry students and/or maths students. Many of the orders requested by Helen are not expressly addressed by eursc or in the alternative, adequately addressed by eursc. Helen pleads herein that in relation to those orders sought, but not defended by eursc those orders must therefore be made by the Complaints Board.

The eursc response to Helen’s case is based almost exclusively on the flawed premise that there has been no procedural irregularity. Instead the eursc seek to argue that the case made by Helen is narrow and largely one

of a pedagogical nature in relation to her chemistry paper and merely seeking an improved mark for her in chemistry. Helen disputes this. Helen is not seeking any determination of a pedagogical nature. Helen is seeking orders regarding the procedures of the eursc, their flaws, and the consequences thereof on her and on the Baccalaureate 2012. The eursc failure to respond to a substantial number of the orders sought in relation to procedural irregularities and appear to take an arrogant and dismissive view of the need for the eursc to act in accordance with natural law, administrative law and common practice in relation to procedural fairness.

Order sought declaring the Baccalaureate 2012 as being fundamentally flawed,This is uncontested by eursc.

Order sought that the Chemistry written exam is fundamentally flawedThis is uncontested by eursc save insofar as they claim Helen is seeking apedagogical review, which is contested by Helen.

Order sought that the eursc normalise Helen’s Chemistry written mark to one which more truly reflects her prior performance and her preBaccalaureate prediction.

The eursc have sought to turn this request into one whereby the Complaints Board might opine on Helen’s performance in the chemistry examination. This is not what Helen has sought. Helen seeks an order from the Complaints Board asking the eursc to review the examination process and any procedural irregularities and to subsequently assess the impact on Helen and Baccalaurate 2012 and for the eursc (not the Complaints Board) to be asked to assess and then to apply corrective measures.

Order sought That the extent of the mismatch between Helen’s preBac prediction and her final outcome was irrational, unfair and flawed

The eursc do not contest this request for an order.

Order sought That the extent of the mismatch between all or many Chemistry students’ preBac predictions and their final outcome as

evidenced by their individual and their Group complaint was irrational, unfair and flawed and was not addressed in the Review

The eursc do not contest this request for an order.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by their ignoring the impact of the mathematics written exam on Chemistry students

The Eursc response accepts that there are significant issues related to the maths exam and that “the papers had had a disorientating effect on the candidates.” They have not addressed in any way the impact of this on Helen and other Chemistry students who sat the chemistry exam the following day. Given that eursc failed to address this it is uncontested by eursc.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law as it did not deal with the inconsistency between the students work leading to the written exam and the final outcome,

The eursc do not contest this request for an order.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by referring to “The study…” but not actually providing any evidence of a study.

The eursc no not contest this request for an order, but have provided a copy of the “Study”, which is addressed separately herein.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by referring to “no abnormality was detected”, but with no supporting evidence.

The eursc do not contest this request for an order, but have now provided a limited amount of data on which they relied. This is addressed separately herein.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by not dealing

with the prima facie evidence of the extraordinarily large volume of complaints, including the Group complaint, and/or the grounds therein

The eursc respond that the level of complaints is not large or unusual, this is addressed separately herein.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by referring to data, such as “the average mark for Chemistry is not outside the range of averages recorded in recent years”, but without any supporting evidence.

The eursc no not contest this request for an order, but have provided a copy of some data on which they relied, which is addressed separately herein.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law and natural justice in that the grounds of the Review were not addressed wholly or in part,

The eursc do not contest this request for an order nor do they address their failure in Helen’s appeal to address the grounds of her Review.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by being prejudged in its entirety or in part

This is addressed separately herein.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by eursc misdirecting themselves as to the process followed as set out in the paragraph entitled “unsubstantiated eursc claim of advance agreement to monitor mathematics”

The eursc do not contest this request for an order, but merely repeat the unsubstantiated claims without any supporting evidence.

Order sought That the BAC 2012 and/or the Chemsitry exam and/or Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative

procedures and administrative law by following different processes for all students and/or maths students and chemistry students

This is addressed separately herein.

Order sought That the BAC 2012 and/or the Chemistry exam and/or Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by following different timing for all students and/or maths students and chemistry students

The eursc do not contest this request for an order nor do they address their failure in Helen’s appeal to address this ground of her Review.

Order sought That the BAC 2012 and/or the Chemistry exam and/or Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by failing to provide objective reasoning for following different processes and/or different timings for all students and/or maths students and chemistry students

The eursc do not contest this request for an order nor do they address their failure in Helen’s appeal to address this ground of her Review.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by refusal to provide data and/or reliance upon such withheld data and/or prejudging the outcome based on such data

The eursc relied upon but did not provide relevant data until Helen had appealed to the complaints board. This must be decisive in any order for costs and is addressed separately herein.

Order sought That the BAC 2012 and/or the Chemistry exam and/or Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by following different data gathering processes for maths students and chemistry students

The eursc do not contest this request for an order nor do they address their failure on this ground of her Review.

Order sought That the BAC 2012 and/or the Chemistry exam and/or Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by its failure to

provide all/some

or any relevant data and/or evidence relied upon in the Review Decision

The eursc relied upon but did not provide relevant data until Helen had appealed to the complaints board. This must be decisive in any order for costs and is addressed separately herein.

Order sought That the BAC 2012 and/or the Chemistry exam and/or Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by applying different criteria to their post exam assessment of maths students outcomes and chemistry students outcomes

The eursc do not contest this request for an order nor do they address their failure on this ground of her Review.

Order sought That the Review by eursc was conducted contrary to fair administrative procedures and administrative law by including the adjudicator in the correspondence

The eursc do not contest this request for an order nor do they address their failure on this ground of her Review.

Order sought That the BAC 2012 and/or the Chemistry exam and/or Review by eursc was conducted contrary to natural justice in terms of its process and/or evidential standards and/or due process and/or access to data and/or lack of procedural fairness.

The eursc do not contest this request for an order nor do they address their failure on this ground of her Review.

Order sought on costs.

This is address separately herein.

A d m issi b i l i t y

The Eursc do not dispute admissibility. However they seek to make three additional points

First they say that “should the Complaints Board consider that there was a procedural irregularity in the decision of the Chairman of the Baccalaureate Examining Board of 6 August 2012 and in the chemistry written examination paper,

the applicant – and all the candidates whose examination might be affected by the same procedural irregularity – ough t t o b e a l l o w ed t o t ak e a n ew e x am i na t i o n . (Emphasis added)

Second the Eursc argue that “the Complaints Board of the European Schools is not competent to order automatically an increase in or a correction to the mark achieved by the student in the chemistry written examination.”

Third, the eursc argue that “In so far as Ms RYAN’s appeal seeks permission to resit a chemistry written examination in September 2012, it is admissible.”

Helen argues that the Complaints Board is competent to opine on whether there has been a procedural irregularity and if they consider that there has been a procedural irregularity, they are entitled to make orders requiring the eursc take measures beyond being able to decide that students impacted take a new examination.

For example the Complaints Board could and should order that the nature of any procedural irregularity found by the Complaints Board be thoroughly assessed by the Eursc and an upward adjustment be made by eursc to relevant students results to an appropriate quantum of adjustment reflecting the nature of the irregularity.

The Complaints board is not being asked to place itself into the shoes of the eursc and determine the exam mark, but to seek a correction of the procedural irregularity.

The eursc position on the competence of the Complaints Board is flawed in both law and fact.

Helen stated that she is currently unemployed. This fact is not addressed by eursc in their seeking an order of €800 in costs. Helen is unable to meet any order for costs at this level and to request that an unemployed 18 year old do so is unfair and irrationale and disproportionate.

Helen claimed that she was a model student at eeb2, Woluwe. She was a consistent high performer and was the class representative for many years and was a student representative at the school. Helen intended to study medicine in the UK, her plans are now in ruins as a result of failings by eursc.

The eursc state “notwithstanding the very satisfactory final result in the Baccalaureate, her results in chemistry have jeopardised her chances of being accepted by the British university to which she had applied and at which she had been offered a place, although no document was produced in support of this claim.”

It is not for the eursc to determine whether Helen’s result is “very satisfactory”. Indeed for a very capable student with a desire to study medicine, the result is inadequate and falls short of what is required to gain entry to a UK medical school. The eursc display a position of complacency and lack of understanding of the requirements of Universities.

The eursc state that no document was produced to support Helen’s claim that she was unable to take up a place in the University which had made her an offer. Helen had, as the European School Brussels 2 is fully aware, an offer from Kings College London. Having received her disappointing Baccalaureate 2012 result, the eursc employed career adviser wrote a letter to the University seeking to explain and mitigate her result. In any event Kings College London rescinded their offer of a place to Helen. they did so by way of the UCAS system, of which the eursc ought to be fully familiar.

Helen respectfully submitted that the Review Decision by eursc was fundamentally flawed and unfair and without basis in fact and largely ignored her Review submissions. Helen therefore requested the Complaints Board to overturn the Review decision.

In their reply the eursc continue to ignore and avoid the case made on the procedural fairness of the eursc process and the Review Decision process and instead seek to defend a narrow and misguided case of a pedagogical nature. Helen understands that the eursc defence case relies upon a particular judicial precedent. However that precedent has not been made available to Helen. Helen is unable to defend herself against this point due to the document being withheld.

Specifically Helen has claimed that along with many other students in Helen’s class and across many, if not all, of the European Schools in the eursc system, were awarded a mark for the written Chemistry exam which is distinctly lower than would have been reasonably expected on the basis of her Baccalaureate 2012 preliminary results. This reasonable expectation is not challenged by the eursc.

These reasonable expectations were set by the eursc when it provided preBaccalaureate predictions.

Helen noted in support of her case that “in the Review Decision reference is made to question in the examination being pitched to .”

“match the standard of attainment expected”.

For a significant number of other students this expectation set by eursc to “match the standard of attainment expected” has manifestly not been met. Results in Chemistry fell far short of the predictions issued by the eursc. The eursc now seem to argue that “the average mark for chemistry written examinations achieved at the European School, Brussels II has always been comparatively low....the provisional average for the 2012 chemistry examination, set at 6.50/10 points..., is not, therefore, notably low.”

The eursc do not address their consistent failure to accurately predict outcomes, while having extensive data at their disposal.

Helen’s case is that her coursework during the year and the preceding year demonstrated her improving capability in Chemistry and the result of the Chemistry written examination bears no relationship with it. Indeed the result of the Chemistry written exam is entirely inconsistent with her improving performance during the lead up to the Chemistry written exam. The procedures followed to assess her level in Chemistry throughout the year and her preparedness for the Chemistry written exam and the process leading to the preBaccalaureate prediction given by the eursc lead to a totally different outcome. This was an outcome which the eursc unconditionally subscribed to. Hence the Chemistry written examination outcome is irrational, disproportionate, inconsistent, unfair and unreasonable.

Importantly Helen argued in the alternative that if that is found not to so be, then the outcome leading to the predictions and preBaccalaureate are in themselves irrational, disproportionate, inconsistent, unfair and unreasonable. Neither case is fair or procedurally correct. This prejudice has not been responded to by the eursc.

Indeed the eursc have actually provided data to support Helen’s case. If as now appear to be the case that the eursc were aware of the fact that “the average mark for chemistry written examinations achieved at the European School, Brussels II has always been comparatively low”, then it follows as the only rational behaviour of the eursc is that the preBaccalaureate predictions should predict this. This has not happened and the preBaccalaureate predictions are therefore irrational and flawed.

To be explicit Helen claims that given the extent of the differential between preBaccalaureate predictions and the Chemistry written examination which the eursc states exists when they say

“The mere finding that there is a difference of 2.7 marks between the preliminary mark and the written examination mark is not sufficient to establish that the paper was affected by a procedural irregularity.

then either:

a) the Chemistry written examination outcome is irrational, disproportionate, inconsistent, unfair and unreasonable given its disparity with the preBaccalaureate predictions produced by eursc; or.

b) the process leading to the preBaccalaureate predictions are in themselves irrational, disproportionate, inconsistent, unfair and unreasonable.

Neither case is fair or procedurally correct.

Further, it is simply inadequate and insufficient for the eursc to now say that the average mark for chemistry written examinations achieved at the European School, Brussels II has always been comparatively low”. The eursc is obliged to address poor performance by students and teachers of chemistry in the European School, Brussels II. Not to do so is a failure of the eursc and no evidence has been provided that any remedial steps have been taken. This is in itself a procedural failing harming Helen and other students. In addition no evidence has been produced that this historical trend was taken into account in either the process leading to the preBaccalaureate predictions and/or the chemistry examination itself, which is a procedural deficit.

In addition to this, Helen has claimed that the mark awarded for Chemistry impacted on her total Baccalaureate 2012 result and that it has been significantly and unfairly impaired. It would appear the same impact has occurred for many other Chemistry students. The eursc do not address this impact and simply ignore it.

Helen has claimed that the eursc presented in the Chemistry written exam 2012, obscure and unfamiliar questions.

Helen has argued that after the Chemistry written exam there were numerous immediate complaints that the wording of several questions

were obscure and unfamiliar. This meant that Chemistry students were put under unnecessary time pressure due to the difficulty of working out precisely what the questions meant. Moreover, the form and phrasing of the exam questions deviated substantially from those of the past Baccalaureate papers in Chemistry for the years 2002-2008 and 2010- 2011, which Helen and the rest of the Chemistry student cohort had been systematically using for in-depth practice. This is unfair and prejudiced the outcome. This prejudice due to obscure and unfamiliar questions is dismissed in the Review Decision as being vague and unjustifiable.

Reference was made by eursc in their Review Decision to opinions of experts but no expert evidence was provided.

Helen claimed that the Chemistry written exam followed the day after the Mathematics written exam. That Mathematics exam has unfortunately required significant post exam adjustment to all Baccalaureate 2012 student results. The immediate and negative impact of the Mathematics written exam and the resulting distress on Helen’s ability to study and perform in the Chemistry written examination the following day and ought to have been taken into account by eursc.

Many students were in turmoil having experienced the Mathematics written exam and the eursc now admit to having received significant representation in relation thereto.

This distraction and flaw in the Mathematics process had direct and damaging impacts on Helen and it is averred on other Chemistry written exam students that were unfair and prejudiced the outcome. This prejudice is not dealt with at all by eursc and is simply and unfairly ignored. The eursc has therefore not acted in a way which was procedurally fair.

Helen argued that the Review Decision refered vaguely to “The study conducted”, yet no study was actually referred to nor supplied. The Review Decision also stated that “no abnormality was detected”, yet no evidence was supplied to support this. This failing in the Review decision is procedurally unfair.

In its defence the eursc have now produced an extremely short note from a Mr Reis.

Helen has sought to interpret this “study”, as it has not been provided to her in her language. Helen refers to the opening paragraphs of this document to the impact this has had on her ability to state her case.

In any event, the note comprises 3 paragraphs. The eursc claim that Mr Reis was charged with seeking the opinion of experts and to review the chemistry written paper. No evidence is provided of the instructions given to Mr Reis.

The short note from Mr Reis is fundamentally flawed and of no judicial value to support the defence of the eursc.

Mr Reis He talks of having consulted experts but provides no evidence of such consultation or of their responses.

Paragraph 1 of his note appears to state that the claims of vagueness, obscurity and unfamiliarity were isolated to either one pupil or one school. This is flawed. He states “ni les experts qui se sont bases sur la version anglaise pour traduire le questionnaire dans leur langue ni les elevesde la section anglaise des autres ES n’ont formule une telle critique”

He goes on to state that “aucun autre eleve qui a passe l’examen de chimie n’a releve une difficulte avec le questionnaire”.

Helen has sought to interpret this.

The study is extraordinary in its factual assertions and the conclusions drawn therefrom. Mr Reis’ assertions are completely untrue and factually inaccurate. It is divorced from reality. It seems centered around one

single student. It is baseless. It is evidence so fundamentally flawed that it has to be both ignored and the eursc reliance on it adds very substantial weight to Helen’s case that there has been a procedural flaw.

Mr Reis’ paragraph 2 is similarly flawed. He appears to state that to form a view on whether the exam was fit for purpose he asked those who wrote it.

There will only ever be one response to that query by Mr Reis of the writers. In terms of it being a “study” beggars belief. Mr Reis then states that he has not received any other complaint.

eursc however acknowledge to the contrary that there were indeed numerous complaints. Hence Mr Reis did not have the correct facts in front of him.

Mr Reis also states that the level of complaints were not higher then prior years. Again this statement is false and inaccurate. The eursc admit 12% of students complained.

Mr Reis then refers at paragraph 3 of his note that the students at ESM were the least well prepared of all the schools. This is entirely inconsistent with the eursc claim that students in Brussels II have historical been the poorest performers.

Mr Reis based on the above concludes then that the complaints are not sustainable.

Any reasonable person will see that this is not a Study as claimed by the eursc.

Any reasonable person will note that the opinions of experts were neither sought nor obtained.

Any reasonable person will see that the note of Mr Reis is factually inaccurate.

Any reasonable person will regard the process followed by Mr Reis as lacking rigour and not to a professional standard.

Any reasonable person will conclude that this is not a “Study” and that for eursc to rely on it is fundamentally wrong.

Hence as a key pillar of their defence the eursc boldly seek to rely on this 3 paragraph study, as expert evidence and sought to mislead in their Review Decision by referring to a Study upon which they relied but failed to disclose.

It might now be apparent why they chose not to disclose the Study until required to do so for the purposes of this Complaint.

This is a manifest error of fact and procedure on the part of the eursc and it cannot withstand any basic analysis. It is very clear the issues involved are not pedagogical but administrative.

This error by eursc had a harmful and negative impact on Helen and other students and must on its own lead to the Review Decision being invalid.

This study when contrasted to that produced and relied upon by the eursc in relation to the maths exam and referred to and relied upon by eursc in their defence, to a very material extent proves Helen’s case on unjustifiably and unjustified different processes, unfair procedures and administrative failings.

Helen argued in her appeal to the Complaints Board that she was sceptical about the nature of any study undertaken. No study was disclosed by eursc in their Review Decision. Hence Helen had no choice but to file her appeal to the Complaints Board. When it comes to the issue of costs, it is Helen’s case that the failure of the eursc to disclose its evidence was a material and decisive factor in her having to make her case to the Complaints Board and should be taken into account on the issue of costs. On the basis of the misleading and very unfortunate reference by the eursc in its Review Decision of a Study, it can only be fair that eursc be required to meet the entire costs of this appeal on an indemnity basis.

In order to counter the opinion of Mr Reis and the reliance on his “ 3 paragraph study” Helen wishes to share an analysis she has done and supported in part by Dr. Bogdan Bjola, Chemical Engineer, Ph.D. in Applied Physical Chemistry. Dr Bjola has 12 years teaching experience in Applied Physical Chemistry at Politehnica University, Bucharest, Erlangen University, Ruhr-University Bochum, and is currently Examiner at the European Patent Office.

Dr Bjola on behalf of certain students conducted a brief analysis of the Chemistry paper.

Helen makes the following observations regarding the Chemistry written paper

QUESTION A1:a) iii) The question did not proceed like a typical weak acid/ base question normally does by finding the pH, but instead it was a very time consuming question. Helen notes this especially considering studentswere not allowed to use the TI-Nspire calculator. The question became even more time consuming as students had to use the non-programmable calculator.

c)i) solution A2=B1, can be very misleading, because the pH’s for solutions A1 and B1 are given and are therefore a big hint to the question, therefore causing confusion and consuming time because students may think this is a trick question. Also, Helen argues that the answers for both solutions A1 and B1 are the same, although “For each of the solutions A1 and B1” suggests the answers will be different. This also causes confusion, and students again may think it is a trick question.

ii) pH of A1= 11.1 and pH of B1= 9.2 and since A2=B1, pH of A2=9.2, but 11.1 – 1.3 is not = 9.2 and nor is 11.1 – 0.1, although 9.2 is an answer students would expect to get for at least one of the solutions. Helen asserts that that question is therefore overall very unclear and confusing.

d) This question in the opinion of Helen is completely unfamiliar and a seemingly complicated and time-consuming question, causing confusion and possibly panic. The fact that students were not allowed to use the TI- Nspire made this question more time consuming and more difficult than it could or should have been.

e)i) This graph was a titration of a weak base being added to a strong acid, where as in past exams it was a titration of a weak acid and strong base. This was an unnecessary surprise, and is also more time consuming than a weak acid strong base titration due to conversion in some calculations. This question had a bad knock-on effect for others to come.

Overall problems for A1: there was no simple weak acid/ base question as there always was in the past where the pH had to be found (the weak acid/ base question in the paper did not go all the way but only part of the way. Most importantly, getting this question right was required for most

of the rest of the questions in A1 (a,b,c) , which does not fairly test students knowledge.

Also, Helen argues that there was a lot less calculating required in A1, more describing what students would expect to get (question b,c). This has not been the case in prior exams, or generally the acid base topic which is primarily concerned with calculations. Helen argues that the simple questions in A1 were missing; there were too many questions with a high number of marks (a)ii),iii), d, e)ii)). In past exams this was not the case.

QUESTION A2:d) i),ii) Here there are 7 points in total, which is a lot, especially since if i) is answered incorrectly, ii) is bound to be as well. This question was also very time-consuming as it would have caused a lot of confusion.

QUESTION A3:a) The very long introduction is very time consuming.

Overall problem for A2 and A3: There were too many overly time- consuming questions, and there were no questions on industrial processes or oxidation, although these topics took up a part of the course syllabus..In addition, as a general statement to part A, students were told that they could not use the TI-Nspire (advanced calculator) only a week before the exams started which was two weeks before the chemistry exam. This was very destabilizing and also led to an increased level of effort and stress to calculate the results. In addition to this, students including Helen hadpracticed for the chemistry with the advanced calculator because they had been told that they were allowed to choose which calculator they could use. Helen chose, as well as she believes, every other student in her class to use the advance calculator.

QUESTION B2:Helen states that there were much too many questions where drawing the structural molecule was required such as ( b)ii), iii), iv) and c) i), iii)),therefore too much of the same abilities, and less of a variety ofquestions. Also drawing the structural formulas was very time consuming.

QUESTION B3:

b) i), iii) Helen argues that if the molecules hexadecanoic acid and octadec-9-enoic acid are understood or remembered incorrectly, this will cause loss of points in i) as well as in iii). So gaining the points in question iii) depends on i).

d) iii) Helen notes that in this question students have been given much information about the glucose, but absolutely none for maltose. There is not even a hint to the process of the production of maltose.

The eursc state that the degree of difficulty of the questions in the 2012 Chemistry exam was no different from that of the previous years. On the basis of independent observations by Helen, other students, parents (including qualified experts in Chemistry) and European School Chemistry teachers, the level of difficulty of the exam as a whole was indeed greater than in previous years. This is especially apparent in section A.

For example, according to a simple analysis, the questions call for a total of 22 chemical reactions to be described (equivalent number for section A of the 2011 paper: was18; for 2010: 18), 28 numerical equations to besolved (2011: 20; 2010: 17), and 15 reasoned explanations to be given(2011: 14; 2010: 11). Likewise, the 2012 exam as a whole clearly showed a greater concentration on complex and relatively time-consuming multi-point questions rather than more straightforward one-point questions, as in previous years: the proportion of difficult questions was therefore greater (2012: 10 one-point questions; 2011: 15; 2010: 19). The kind of difficulties involved in the 2012 exam may be epitomized by items d) ande) in question A1. Here, the complex multi-part question d) was of a kind which Helen had never encountered before. In terms of form and wordingthere is no parallel to it in the exam papers for 2011, 2010 or indeed any other year over the past decade. The graph-based question e), on the other hand, involved the additional complication of representing the opposite process to that depicted in the corresponding graphs in the exam papers of previous years. This reversal calls for extra calculation steps as part of a complicated solution procedure which students had no chance to practise using past exam papers. Moreover, as a further indication of theheightened level of difficulty of the 2012 exam paper, several questions in it were interrelated with the effect that, if a student failed to answer one question correctly, another question would be likely to be answered wrongly too, thus entailing a correspondingly greater risk of compound errors (examples: section A2a)i. and ii., A2d)i., A3a)iv. and v., section B1a)i. and ii., B3b)i. and iii.). Such interrelations are much less evident inthe papers for 2011, 2010 and for previous years.

A further consequence of the difficult overall nature of the exam was the undue time pressure which students including Helen had to face, as reflected in the large number of exam scripts which were most likely unfinished or completed only in haste and therefore with a lower-than- representative level of accuracy. Eursc have not produced any evidence in this regard. Helen argues it is likely to be significant.

The eursc and their so called expert Mr Reis state that the Chemistry exam questions were proposed by the European Schools’ own Chemistry teachers in order to meet the criteria of ensuring that they were pitched at the right level of difficulty, consistent with the syllabus, and of matching the standard of attainment expected.

While it is true that the questions are proposed by European School teachers, those actually put forward to be chosen by the Chairman of the Examining Board are selected by the relevant European Schools Inspector and his committee of experts presumably including Mr Reis (Articles 5.1 and 6.3.3 of the Arrangements). Hence Mr Reis was in no way independent but part of the flawed process. To ask him subsequently to opine is itself a flawed administrative process.

Helen argues that the nature of the paper set, the Review by Mr Reis and the Review Decision by eursc each ignore very apparent differences from prior years, ignore actual experience of those who sat it and amount to an administrative failing.

Helen made extensive submissions in her appeal based on their being a very significant number of complaints and significant evidence of disquiet. The eursc respond to this in a manner which only serves to prove Helen’s case. They state “It is true that 46 students made a complaint about the organisation of the chemistry written examination (document 8). In order to have an objective opinion regarding the fitness for purpose of the chemistry paper in relation to the subject matter taught, Mr Edouard RIES, a secondary education Inspector in the European Schools, deemed it necessary to consult experts and to give an opinion on the questions set in the chemistry written examination. After experts and teachers had been consulted, the criticisms expressed by the students proved to be neither sufficiently precise nor well founded (document 7).”

Helen has already shown that the report of Mr Reis is fundamentally inaccurate and flawed and cannot be relied upon or defended. Helen has also argued that no evidence is provided to substantiate the claim that

teachers were consulted or their opinions. Indeed the view of teachers would appear to be to the contrary.

Helen argued that a significant number of other students have or are raising similar concerns regarding the Chemistry written paper and have experienced the same type of outcome. Helen argues that the level of complaints amount to an extraordinary number, is unprecedented and suggests a fundamental problem. Helen therefore specifically including in her Review the fact of these other complaints and the grounds supporting them and the procedural flaws raised therein. The number of complaints related to the Chemistry Baccalaureate 2012 far exceed, by multiples, the total number of complaints received from all students, in all subjects from all schools in any prior year. Any claim by eursc and/or reliance on the contrary view of Mr Reis is expressly disputed as false.

The Chemistry written exam process was so flawed that very significant numbers of students were forced to complain. Helen was a party to the Group complaint. This Group complaint includes additional grounds such as that related to calculator use in the Chemistry written exam which added to Helen’s complaint.

It is worth noting that many students were unaware of the large drop in mark for other students and thought it was merely a matter of their own performance. Indeed this is what Helen believed until she heard of the Group complaint. Many students have merely moved on to the next stage of their lives and statistically will not have needed Chemistry to so do, and therefore have not joined the complaint. Many others were on holiday. In this context this volume of complaints and lack of coherent action by eursc demonstrates beyond doubt that there has been a procedural flaw in the Chemistry written paper, leading to such inconsistent outcomes. This prejudice nor the volume of complaints, nor the additional grounds in the group complaint, are not responded to either adequately or at all by the eursc. Indeed the eursc does not in its submission touch on the grounds of the Group complaint and specifically in relation to the use of calculators.

It remains unexplained why and how the eursc decided to make a position on the use of calculators in the days before the written examination. they felt it necessary to communicate this decision to students. Yet they do not provide any evidence of taking this matter into account in the written examination marking process.

Helen in her appeal stated that she became aware that a significant number of other students from all or many European schools were raising similar concerns regarding the chemistry exam and had experienced distress as a result of the mathematics written exam and the fact that it required post examination revision. Helen stated that all maths students have since had their marks uprated, hence the volume of complaints will likely have subsided. Helen directly suffered from the procedural defect when sitting the Chemistry written examination the following day, as referenced above and based her appeal in part upon this. She specifically including in her Review the fact of these other complaints regarding the Mathematics written examination and the grounds supporting them and the procedural flaws raised therein. This volume of complaints, the subsequent action by eursc, the systemic flaw leading to the uprating of all Mathematics marks, and the consequences of it on the Chemistry written exam demonstrates beyond doubt that there has been a procedural flaw in the BAC 2012. This specifically impacted directly and consequently on the students who sat the Chemistry written paper the next day, leading to inconsistent and procedurally flawed outcomes for Chemistry students but not other Baccalaureate students. This prejudice is not addressed by eursc, not challenged in their Review Decision nor were the grounds of, nor the impact of the Mathematics written exam complaints addressed therein or in their submission to the Complaints Board. The only discernable position of the eursc is that the maths exam process was different. If, and this is not admitted, there are grounds for treating it differently, it does not negate the fact that it had consequences for chemistry and/or other students. eursc do not challenge this in their submission and it must be deemed to be accepted.

The eursc seem to dismiss the volume of complaints by saying “Conversely, 88% of the candidates registered for the chemistry examination did not lodge a complaint.”

12% of students lodging complaints is in itself an extraordinary and unprecedented volume. 12% of citizens challenging administrative decisions in national tribunals would be highly unusual in any civil society. To take an example if 12% of the 65,000,000 French citizens challenged a decision by the French government approximately 7,852,386 cases would come before the courts. That would be utterly unprecedented. The eursc reliance on narrow focused statistics in its defence are misplaced. 12% of students to complain is an incredibly voluminous number, unprecedented and one which the eursc seem to treat wrongly as trivial, compounding their administrative failings.

A similar issue arose in the UK and below are some extracts of the nature of the consequences.

h t t ps : / / n e w s . g oo gl e . i e / n e ws / s t o r y ? h l = e n & t o k =e Y a h 75 E d R v x C o a a un K 7 4 Ew & ds = n & p q = g c s e &c p = 8 & g s_ i d = p & xh r= t & q = G C S e + r o w & s afe= o ff& ba v = o n . 2 , o r . r _ g c . r _pw . r _ c p . r _ q f . & io n = 1 & bi w = 1 8 9 8 & b ih = 98 9 & u m = 1 &i e= UT F - 8 & n c l = d M x P i - C b y l f l i 4 M F m wO 6 z V q U z 9 - 0 M & s a= X & e i = b o h P UO n fB 4 q R h Q ff m YH YD g & s qi = 2 & p j f = 1 & v e d = 0 C C k Qq g I wA A

Sketch: GCSE row descends into grade-A nonsenseTelegraph.co.uk - 1 hour agoToday, MPs asked executives from Ofqual why many pupils sitting GCSEs this summer got grades that were much lower than expected, particularly in English Language. Sadly, the MPs didn't get far, because most of the answers consisted of unfathomable ...

GCSE row grows as Welsh pupils are re-graded – while results in England standTelegraph.co.uk - 19 hours agoIt is the latest twist in an ongoing row over marking in this summer's GCSEs. Figures published in August showed that the proportion of pupils gaining A* to C grades across all subjects fell for the first time in the exam's 24-year history. Particular concerns were...

Row reignites over GCSE exam boundariesFinancial Times - 19 hours ago

Following an official review, he “asked the WJEC to re-award its GCSE English Language in line with the report's recommendations”. John Townsley, a Leeds head teacher and, until March, a board member at Ofqual, said: “We can see, in the most certain ...

Leaked Letters Explode GCSE Exam Grades RowSky News - 8 hours agoThe head of the school exams watchdog has admitted urging examiners to change GCSE English grade boundaries just weeks before they were published. Glenys Stacey, who is facing calls to resign, insisted Ofqual had acted "properly" and without political ...

Exam board appeals for agreement in GCSE regrade rowBBC News - 2 hours agoIt follows a row about students being awarded lower grades than expected. Mr Andrews said he wanted GCSE English papers regraded after publishing the findings of a review by regulatory officials on Monday. The Welsh government is the exam regulator ...

Row over GCSE re-gradeITV News - 6 hours agoEducation Minister Leighton Andrew has called for English Language GCSEs sat by Welsh students to be regraded by exam board the WJEC - a move that's being attacked as 'political'. It follows concerns that the results were unfair because of a change in ...

MPs question Ofqual chiefs about GCSEgrading row: Politics live blogThe Guardian (blog) - 3 hours agoOsborne has announced that the autumn statement will be on Wednesday 5 December. He has also said that the post of governor of the Bank of England, which is becoming vacant because Sir Mervyn King is retiring, will be advertised in the Economist this ...

Leaked letter deepens GCSE grading row as Parliament hears of “major flaws”Left Foot Forward - 2 hours agoIn the wake of a leaked letter and story that will not go away, the education select committee heard evidence from Brian Lightman of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head ...

GCSE English: WJEC ordered to regrade examsBBC News - 2 hours agoWales' education minister has ordered an exam board to regrade English GCSEs in a row about students' results. Leighton Andrews says hundreds of pupils had been the victims of an "injustice" after receiving lower grades than expected. He issued a formal ...

Leaked Letters Explode Exam Grades RowSky News - 17 hours agoThe head of Ofqual is urged to quit after the latest revelation in the GCSE English exam row on the day of giving evidence to MPs. 10:19am UK, Tuesday 11 September 2012. Pupils taking GCSE exams. Video: There are calls for Ofqual's chief regulator to ...

Ofqual letter stokes row over GCSEgrading controversyTelegraph.co.uk - Sep 9, 2012The correspondence emerged as the country's most famous private schools prepared to wade into the row over GCSE grading. On Sunday, it was revealed that the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, which represents 250 top schools including ...

Q and A: GCSE English errors - how am I affected?Channel 4 News - 28 minutes agoWith the row rumbling on over GCSE English results, Channel 4 News sets out to answer a few questions for people who fear they have been unfairly treated. Q and A: GCSE English errors - how am I affected? 1. I did GCSE English this summer. Does what's ...

Is Ofqual Putting Statistics Before Students?Huffington Post UK - 4 hours agoOfqual was accused of failing to maintain standards after GCSE results in the summer were significantly lower than expected. It has now emerged some students who took the same exams in January were given higher grades than if they had sat the papers in ...

'Communication Could Have Been Better', Admtis Ofqual Over GCSE Grade ...Huffington Post UK - 4 hours ago'Communication Could Have Been Better', Admtis Ofqual Over GCSE Grade Boundaries Row. The Huffington Post UK | By Lucy Sherriff Posted: 11/09/2012 15:05 Updated: 11/09/2012 15:05. reddit stumble · Share on Google+. Ofqual Gcse. Is Ofqual putting ...

Ofqual: schools' GCSE grade predictions 'too generous'Telegraph.co.uk - 2 hours agoThe comments – in evidence to a cross-party committee of MPs – came amid a continuing row over the system used to grade English GCSEs. Teachers' leaders fear that that tens of thousands of teenagers predicted to gain at least a C scored Ds or worse ...

GCSE English: Regrade demand made in WalesBBC News - 22 hours ago

It follows a row about students being awarded lower grades than expected last month. His decision marks a break with England where ministers have refused to intervene. The percentage of pupils from Wales gaining an A* to C in GCSE English language fell ...

No re-mark of GCSE EnglishSpectator.co.uk (blog) - 6 hours agoMichael Gove will not be ordering a re-mark of GCSE English papers, in spite of the ongoing row. Picture: Getty. Any hope that Labour might hold that the latest revelations about Ofqual might prompt a re-mark of the GCSE English papers is almost certain to ...

Stephen Twigg on GCSEs: 'We need a full inquiry'BBC News - 8 hours agoShadow Education Secretary Stephen Twigg has called for a ''full independent inquiry'' to resolve a row over GCSE English results. It has emerged that the exam board, Edexcel, was asked by the regulator, Ofqual, to alter its GCSE English grade boundaries ...

GCSE results 2012: Why GCSE is brokenTelegraph.co.uk - 12 hours agoAs this summer's row has shown, English GCSE is broken. It neither tests literacy well enough, nor does it inspire the lifelong love of literature it should. Let's junk the GCSE system, as Mr Gove is planning to do, but replace it with an exam much more like the ...

Eight in 10 Kent secondary schools got lower GCSE English results than...

Thousands of GCSEs weredowngraded two weeks before

Kent Online - 3 hours agoThe row over the marking of GCSE English exams has triggered protests from many headteachers and the threat of legal action. Mike Whiting KCC's analysis comes as it emerged hundreds of grades were lowered at the last minute when Ofqual - the regulator ...

Welsh education minister Leighton Andrews calls for GCSE regradingThis is South Wales - 8 hours agoWelsh education minister Leighton Andrews has called on officials to regrade English GCSE papers following a Welsh Government review. A row broke out last month after it emerged grade boundaries for those taking their English language and literature ...

GCSE English grades changed weeks before results outEvening Standard - 9 hours agoThe row over the GCSE English results broke out last month after it emerged that grading boundaries for the subject were altered between January and June. Angry headteachers claimed that exam boards raised grade boundaries in the subject halfway ...

results came outDaily Mail - 19 hours agoThe row intensified last night when it emerged hundreds of pupils in Wales – which holds devolved education powers – are expected to receive higher GCSE English grades after the education minister demanded their papers were regraded by board WJEC.

Letters prove exam watchdog did orderGCSE downgradeThe Independent - 8 hours ago... last night said pupils had been victims of an "injustice" following the row over students being awarded lower grades that expected last month. He has ordered the WJEC exam board to re-award its GCSE English language grades for around 1,000 students.

GCSE English: Leighton Andrews interviewed on regrading in WalesBBC News - Sep 10, 2012Wales' education minister has demanded that the GCSE English exams of several hundred pupils in Wales are re-graded. Leighton Andrews said a review had persuaded him they had been the victims of an "injustice". It follows a row about students being ...

GCSE English exam regrade called for by Welsh governmentBBC News - Sep 10, 2012Pupils in Wales are expected to get better grades in their English exams after a review found they had suffered an "injustice" in this summer's GCSEs. Education minister Leighton Andrews has demanded their papers be regraded as a result of the review.

GCSE results had 'serious impact'Hartlepool Mail - 7 hours ago"If we were not already planning to remove modular GCSEs after the current school year, we think there would now be a strong case for doing so." Overall English GCSE results at grade C and above were down by 1.5 percentage points this year - in line with ...

Leighton Andrews announced on Monday a review had persuaded him English ...BBC News - 12 hours agoIt follows a row about students being awarded lower grades than expected. England's exams regulator Ofqual has refused to order exam boards to regrade this summer's English GCSEs. Mr Andrews told BBC Wales he will give WJEC a "reasonable time" to ...

Officials react to Leighton Andrews'sGCSE regrade demandBBC News - 11 hours agoThe education sector and politicians have been reacting to a demand by Education Minister Leighton Andrews that GCSE English papers be regraded in Wales. It follows a row about students being awarded lower grades than expected. Leighton Andrews ...

Heads tell MPs exam watchdog 'failed' in GCSE gradesBBC News - 8 hours agoHead teachers' leader Brian Lightman has told MPs that there have been "major flaws" and unfairnesses in this year's GCSE English grades. The Education Select Committee is investigating claims that grades have been manipulated downwards. Ahead of ...

Helen argues that her overall BAC 2012 mark is impacted and to an extent discredited by the actions of the eursc.

Withholding of data by eursc

Eursc has consciously and deliberately withheld information. This harmed Helen’s ability to formulate her appeal herein and harmed her ability to formulate her request for Review as submitted then rejected by eursc. This damaged Helen’s ability to properly appeal in her Review,

damaged the process and led to an unfair hearing. This prejudice is not challenged by the eursc and the eursc simply seek to rely on the fact that “Account needs to be taken of the fact that the 2012 session only closes at the end of the second session in September when candidates who were absent in June on medical or other duly justified grounds or, in the case of this particular year, when candidates who have chosen to resit the mathematics paper have all been awarded their final marks. The following subjects appear in the calendar for the 2012 resits session: mathematics, chemistry and biology.

The European Schools therefore consider that they are required to publish the statistics only after the 2012 session has definitively closed, i.e. during October.”

The eursc may well be correct that from a general public information point of view they only produce data once complete. However for the purposes of individual appeals they rely on such data themselves prior to publication yet do not disclose it. They withhold it from those seeking to formulate appeals, creating prejudice. It cannot be procedurally fair that they have and rely upon data, albeit incomplete, yet refuse to disclose it to those affected by the decisions made by eursc relying upon such data.

The eursc had many requests for data and despite being afforded the opportunity and to avoid this Complaint, eursc chose not to provide it. Providing prior year data as they did is inadequate. This further supports Helen’s argument that it was necessary for her to appeal to the Complaints Board and should influence the Complaints Board in any decision on costs.

Further the report on Mr Reis is dated prior to Helen’s submission of her request for review to the eursc. while the eursc so heavily rely upon it, he cannot have considered Helen’s request document setting out her grounds for review . Hence his report is of zero value, predates Helen’s request, bears no relationship to Helen’s request. eursc reliance upon the report of Mr Reis is a fundamental procedural error.

Helen argued in her appeal that the outcome of her Review was prejudged.

She annexed correspondence with, Mr Kivinen on behalf of eursc stated that eursc had already concluded that the Mathematics written exam situation is not similar to the Chemistry written exam situation. He wrote……

“The Mathematics written exam situation is not comparable with the Chemistry situation.”

This was in advance of consideration of Helen’s Review. Eursc unfairly so concluded without reaching the end of their then ongoing Review as submitted by Helen, and of othercomplaints submitted individually and collectively and prior to theconclusion of the eursc appeal process. In addition eursc did so without providing any supporting evidence. This is unfair and in itself a procedural flaw. This prejudice was not addressed in the review decision.

Eursc now claim that “The sole purpose of the opinions expressed by Mr KIVINEN was to explain to the applicants the regulatory provisions applicable to the Baccalaureate and the reasons why measures had been taken concerning the mathematics examination and not for the chemistry examination.”

On face value and using any reasonable interpretation it is clear Mr Kivinen was stating a position on behalf of eursc, the body of which he is the Secretary General and the ultimate decision maker, regardless of to whom he might have delegated authority. By way of reminder he stated without caveat “In no case there will be any change of Baccalaureate results in July or August.” Hence any request for review by Helen was as a matter of fact prejudged.

The eursc then go on to make some vague assertions about the volume of complaints received, but don’t appear to pursue. Helen ignores this as ad hominum.

Eursc then go on to state “The applicant cannot have it both ways, on the one hand, criticising the organs of the European Schools for not giving enough information and on the other, at the same time criticising those same organs for prejudging the outcome of the administrative appeal lodged when information is communicated to her.”

Eursc are seeking to avoid the issue, Helen argues that the eursc did indeed hide information, such as Mr Reis study. In addition Helen argues that her case was prejudged as a matter of process, for example by the fact that the study relied upon by eursc of Mr Reis to deny Helen’s review actually predates Helens request for Review. These are mutually exclusive and the argument of the eursc does not withstand simple scrutiny.

Helen argued that there was in the Review Decision an unsubstantiated eursc claim of advance agreement to monitor Mathematics. Helen noted an email by Mr Kivinen, wherein the

eursc stated that the eursc had, at some point, decided in advance of the Baccalaureate to monitor the Mathematics written exam in some specific way. The eursc then also claim that based on the outcome of that monitoring they decided to subsequently adjust the results of the Mathematics written exam. Helen challenged this and stated that no evidence has been adduced to confirm its veracity. In addition this process was never made known in advance. Helen strongly challenged this assertion of a process claimed to have been followed by eursc. Based on the available evidence which specifically is t h a t t h e e u r s c r e s p on d e d t o a h u g e o u t cry f o l lo w i n g t h e Ma t h e m a ti c s w r i t t e n e x a m . T h en a n d o n l y th e n d i d t h e e u r s c c o m m iss i o n a r e p o r t . This report supported the case made by those complaining about the Mathematics written exam. Then the eursc decided to act and take corrective measures. Helen argued that to her prejudice, this claim and the reliance and belief in it by eursc was untrue and administratively flawed. Helen also argued that it also called into account the good faith of eursc. The eursc admit in their reply that their behaviour was influenced by inter alia, “difficulties experienced, right across the board, by the candidates”

Hence Helen argued that eursc followed a fundamentally different process and timing between the maths and the Chemistry exam.

Eursc decided to act "before" the maths exam results were published. Eursc decided to follow a different process for the Chemistry written exam, including ignoring complaints that they received and ought to have been hearing and acting upon post the Chemistry written exam.

Helen argued that this different process prejudiced Helen and other Chemistry students when compared to all other Baccalaureate 2012 students.

This prejudice based on fundamentally different process is not justified by eursc in its reply and the issue of timing is not challenged by eursc.

Helen argued that the absence of objective reasons for the different treatment is a further element of the procedural flaw. This prejudice based on lack of objective reasons for different treatment is not challenged by the eursc.

Helen argued that there was unreasonable delay by eursc in providing data. For example on 6th August Mr Kivinen advised that statistical data

related to the Chemistry exam would only be published in October. He did so knowing that a) he was in possession of data and was relying on it2) that the data was fundamental to any fair Review or appeal process for Helen 3) that the data had been requested on numerous occasions onHelen’s behalf and by the Group complainants and 4) that his expert Mr Reis would or should use such data. Eursc simply restate their denial that they need to provide such data. This is unfair and prejudicial in any review process.

Further by way of non-objective differences between students Helen argued that certain data made available by eursc for Mathematics students post the exam result decision but not for Chemistry students. Eursc do not deny this nor justify it There is clear inconsistency of and unfair treatment of Chemistry students vis-a-vis both Mathematics students and all other Baccalaureate 2012 students. This prejudice based on requesting then using available data for Mathematics but not Chemistry, and the inconsistent use of data by eursc is not challenged.

Helen noted that the eursc revised all math student results and offered all Mathematics students a re-sit. Chemistry written exam students such as Helen have not been afforded this opportunity. The objective reasoning for this differential treatment is not provided by eursc. Similarly the eursc ignore in their response Helen’s claim that the actions of the eursc prejudiced Chemistry students in relation to their timetable for university entry decisions.

Helen argued that the eursc applied different standards year on year in relation to statistical correlations and that the eursc saw or ought to have seen, but then did not address major discrepancies seen between years or subjects. Helen argued that this is both unfair and prejudicial. Further Helen noted that as a matter of fact, it was so done for Mathematics written exam students. Vague references to data are relied upon by eursc but very little is submitted in evidence. Helen below presents a basic analysis of the data provided.

Helen also argued that the eursc found an unacceptable margin of error for written Mathematics and corrected it but did not apply the same analysis or correction to Chemistry statistics. This is not justified by eursc.

The eursc state, which assertion is not admitted by Helen, that Mr Kivinen was not a decision maker but that Mr Pachler was so charged. Helen argued thatthere was an unfair communication process in that the

decision maker Mr Pachler was included on much of the correspondence by eursc, potentially prejudicing the outcome of the Review Process. In fact there was no process to determine the case stated and considered and the evidence supplied. Eursc do not seek to defend this argument.

Helen adduced evidence of general disquiet in her closing remarks of her appeal. The eursc do not dispute this in their reply. including Helen’s assertion that to a certain extent Baccalaureate 2012 has been discredited and has caused distress and has ruined an otherwise 12 great years Helen had at eeb2.

To take issue with certain other points raised by eursc in their defence. They state “There then followed an almost daily exchange of emails between the applicant, her parents and Mr KIVINEN, Secretary-General of the European Schools”.

The eursc are being disingenuous with the above statement. There were approximately 30 days between the notification of the result and the application for review. There were not 30 items of correspondence or anything of that order. It is unclear what point is being made by the eursc and it is biased, subjective and unwarranted and the Complaints Board are requested to ignore it. Further given the future of a young bright student is at stake an intense amount of correspondence is both necessary and justified and the impact on the individual seems to be lost and ignored by eursc, who seek to merely justify their flawed processes and regardless of the impact on young people’s lives.

The eursc state that “Following the complaints recorded by the Chairman of the Baccalaureate Examining Board, secondary education Inspector Mr RIES was charged with seeking the opinion of experts and with reviewing the chemistry written examination question paper. The Inspector found the wording of none of the questions could be considered obscure, that no comments had been made by the markers of the chemistry examination and that the teachers of the subject considered that the 2012 session examination was of roughly the same degree of difficulty as in previous years

The eursc go on to state that “It is not sufficient therefore to invoke the obscurity of the wording of certain questions – referred to, incidentally, generally and indeterminately – to provide evidence of a procedural irregularity.

Helen has above set out in detail reasons why Mr Ries’s report is fundamentally flawed and Helen also sets out in significantly more

specificity that Mr Reis an analysis of the Chemistry paper and its differences from prior years. Yet Mr Reis is considered the expert.

Eursc state that “Analysis of those statistics does not, therefore, enable a general decline in the results to be identified, something which would indicate that the questions set were obscure or inappropriate.” Helen disproves this below in her analysis of the statistical data albeit very limited data, provided by eursc.

Eursc state that the issue with Maths justifying its different treatment was due to statistics which “subsequently confirmed by a general fall in marks and hence an overall average which was appreciably lower than in previous years.” Below Helen will show that the statistics for Chemistry as relied upon by eursc show an equal if not more extreme negative trend and that they are in terminal decline.

Eursc state that “From examination of the statistics thus published, it can be seen that the average mark for chemistry written examinations achieved at the European School, Brussels II has always been comparatively low …..The provisional average for the 2012 chemistry examination, set at 6.50/10 points (document 3), is not, therefore, notably low. “

The eursc state that Chemistry written exam results at eeb2 have always been comparatively low. This begs questions as to why and why this is not reflected in predictions and the reasonableness of any such predictions. Helen would question the eursc’s analysis. They have not shown any evidence as to why students in eeb2 less capable than students elsewhere, any evidence to that effect would be astonishing and a matter of public interest. The likely issue is within the eursc and its systems and processes and justify Helen’s complaint that the eursc has failed procedurally.

Helen denies in absolute terms the unnecessary assertion by eursc that there was an error in taking “partial quotations from letters exchanged with the Secretary-General as a basis to claim that he prejudged the appeal lodged by the applicant.” Pertinent comments were used in quotations.

Let Helen now turn to the data and statistical analysis provided by eursc.

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Tota

l

Helen accepts that the data sample is small and that limits interpretation and reliance but this is the only data provided by eursc.

Helen also notes that the statistical relevance of certain data is more reliable in some charts than in others.

In some of the analysis the “r-squared”, or the statistical relevance is above 0.9, and hence is highly reliable and cannot be contested. In some the reliability is significantly less.

Helen urges the Complaints Board to simply observe the terrible trends and statistics in relation to Chemistry, the extremely poor outcomes in 2012, the deteriorating ability of the eursc to predict and the deteriorating disconnect between the outcomes driven by the written paper.

The problem is acute. Helen’s analysis while necessarily limited by the data provided, is more reliable than that relied upon by eursc and Helen’s analysis shows the truer picture.Table 1

8.00

7.50

7.00

6.50

Prelim

Written

Linear (Prelim)

Linear (Written)

6.00

Table 1 shows the eursc pre Baccalaureate prediction compared to written papers over time in absolute terms. It shows that the difference in actual performance relative to the eursc pre Baccalaureate prediction is on a serious decline. Over the years pre Baccalaureate predictions relied upon by eursc, based on the statistical data supplied and relied upon by eursc, shows a linear negative trend. In 1997 the difference in linear trend, or if you like the accuracy of eursc’s pre Baccalaureate prediction was about

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Tota

l

1.25 and shockingly by 2012 this multiplied by 400% using a linear differential trend. In other words the differential between eursc’s pre Baccalaureate prediction and actual outcomes has increased from 2.5% to 10%. In addition in actual terms 2012 was the year with the most significant actual difference, save 2008.Table 2

1.4

diff PW

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

diff PW

Linear (diff PW)

0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

Table 2 shows the actual differential between written paper and eursc pre Baccalaureate prediction and shows that 2012 is statistically the worse year in terms of differential amounting to about 12%, save for 2007/8. It also shows that statistically the accuracy of eursc predicted scores by way of the pre Baccalaureate prediction and the written paper is becoming less accurate year on year statistically and has degraded from less than 3% in 1997 to close to 10% in 2012.

Table 3

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Tota

l

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Tota

l

8.00

7.80

7.60

7.40

7.20

7.00

6.80

6.60

Written

Final

Linear (Written)

Linear (Final)

6.40

6.20

6.00

Note Table 3 shows the differential between absolute written paper and final scores, and shows that 2012 is statistically the worse year in terms of differential save for 2007/8. It also shows that statistically the gap between written paper and final mark is growing. On a linear statistical analysis the gap in 1997 was approximately 0.1 while in 2012 the gap has grown by 400% to 0.5. In addition 2012 was the year with the largest differential on an actual basis (save for 2007/8) and on a statistical analysis basis.

Table 4

0.300.200.100.00

-0.10-0.20-0.30-0.40-0.50-0.60-0.70

diff WF

diff WF

Linear (diff WF)

Table 4 shows the actual gap between the written paper and the final mark in absolute terms. It shows that the difference in actual performance

1997

2000

2009

2004

1999

2011

1998

2001

2003

2005

Tota

l 20

1020

0620

0220

0720

1220

08

in the written paper relative to the final mark is on a serious decline. Over the years based on the statistical data supplied and relied upon by eursc, shows a linear negative trend. In 1997 the difference in linear trend, or if you like the closeness of written exam performance to the final mark was close to zero. Shockingly by 2012 this increased to close to 5% using linear differential trend analysis. In addition in actual terms 2012 was the year with the most significant actual difference, save 2007/8.

Table 5

0.300.200.100.00

-0.10-0.20-0.30-0.40-0.50-0.60-0.70

diff WF

diff WF

Linear (diff WF)

Table 5 shows the actual gap between the written paper and the final mark in absolute terms by year. It shows the difference in actual performance in the written paper relative to the final mark in actual terms. 2012 was the year with the most significant actual difference, save 2008.

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Tota

l

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

tota

l

table 68.00

7.80

7.60

7.40

7.20

7.00

6.80

6.60

6.40

6.20

Prelim

Final

Linear (Prelim)

Linear (Final)

Table 6 shows the actual range of pre Baccalaureate predictions issued by eursc and actual final scores, and shows that 2012 is statistically the worse year in terms of the differential save for 2007/8. It also shows that statistically the gap between the eursc pre Baccalaureate prediction and final mark is growing. On a linear statistical analysis the gap in 1997 was approximately 0.1 while in 2012 the gap has grown by nearly 400% to approximately 0.5. In addition 2012 was the year with the largest differential on an actual basis (save for 2007/8) and on a statistical analysis basis.

table 7

0.700.600.500.400.300.200.100.00

-0.10-0.20-0.30

diff PF

diff PF

Linear (diff PF)

Table 7 shows the gap between eursc’s pre Baccalaureate predictions and actual final scores. It shows that statistically the gap between eursc’s pre Baccalaureate prediction and actual final mark is growing. On a linear statistical analysis the gap in 1997 was approximately 0.15 while in 2012 the gap has grown by approximately 300% to 0.45 and statistically eursc’s predictive capabilities decline year or year.

table 88.00

7.80

7.60

7.40

7.20

7.00

6.80Written

Final

6.60

6.40

6.20

6.00

Table 8 shows the gap between absolute results in the written paper and the actual final mark, each sorted by level. It shows the difference in actual performance in the written paper relative to the final mark in actual terms. 2012 was the year with the lowest results, save 2007/8.

Whilst both parties can argue statistics, Helen merely wishes to use them to illustrate both the procedurally flawed reliance on them by eursc, and the performance in 2012 and its negative position relative to prior years.

Finally the eursc helpfully argue that “even if it were to be considered [by the Complaints Board] that the organ competent to rule on an appeal against the Baccalaureate’s organisation, namely Professor PACHLER, had prejudged what should happen about the administrative appeal lodged by Ms RYAN (quod non), such a procedural irregularity would affect only the actual administrative appeal, and not the legality of the mark awarded to the applicant for her chemistry examination.

Helen agrees and reminds the Complaints Board that her appeal is exclusively administrative and not pedagogical.

To reiterate on costs, Helen believes that she has proven her case on its merits. However in the event the Complaints Board opines otherwise Helen argues

a) She is unemployed and without any financial means to payb) Should any order to pay be made, that it be spread over a minimum

of 5 years to make it affordable for herc) That her appeal was necessary given the eursc did not provide data

upon which they relied, such as the report of Mr Reis.d) That an award of costs will act as an utterly unreasonable deterrent

to students at eursc, to an effective right of appeal in arguablecases, to the detriment of the student population and the eursc system generally.

Submitted by Helen Ryan 19th September 2012