Decisions concerning academic achievements

Jan Steen, XVII century, Class with sleeping master

1. Not every deliberation is equally objective. This is not necessarily done on the basis of malicious motives. Incidentally, it is not a disaster to repeat a year (especially if during this year you focused your attention on other things than the subject matter), but if the decision is so arbitrary, it can be considered to take further steps.

2. In the first instance, reassessment of the appeal takes place for the school itself. This internal procedure usually takes place for the director himself or his representative. The director can, have the examination committee meet again after, for example, new tests have been taken. Here it can be decided to confirm or replace the original result.

3. It cannot be ruled out that this initial reassessment will still remain random (the psychology of solidarity between colleagues who work together every day is a normal group reaction).

4. If the decision still leaves something to be desired, an appeal can be lodged with the appeals committee at the school. External school members also sit on this committee. This committee can confirm or change the decision. The information about this procedure can be found in the school regulations.

5. The rights of the student are generally reflected in the Flemish Higher Education Codex.

For students in higher education, the Council for Study Progress Disputes was created to ease the workload on the Council of State in this matter. This Council can of course only be consulted after the internal appeal procedure at the educational institution itself has been completed, this procedure is included in the education and examination regulations.

This Council has now been in existence for more than 12 years, so its decisions can give rise to certain conclusions.

6. Usually, the testing of exams is based on the principles of good administration, in particular. on the basis of compliance with the motivation and reasonableness principles.

Are there sufficient reasons justifying the result awarded and can it be called reasonable? Given that the examination structure, the allocation of credits, and the criteria are streamlined from the EU (because of the concern of recognition of the diplomas, so that the studies must be coordinated), the criteria prescribed here (cfr European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) have a significant role (e.g. the decision on the form of the evaluation - written or oral, or in-group - must be taken at the beginning of the year).

7. It is based on the reasoning that the examiner does not act arbitrarily, but acts reasonably, so that the burden of proof rests with the student. And that evidence is relatively strict, so that there is still quite a lot of room for the examiner. The Council will never get involved with the content of the questions during the evaluation. Proof of the student's substantive insight is also paramount, which means that if a student gives theoretically correct answers, but at the same time it is judged by the examiner that he does not have insight into the substantive coherence, the student still could receive a negative evaluation, which will not be sanctioned by the Council.

8. Control must be possible. In written exams, the reasons for the negative evaluation must be visible. The mere mention of a few standard statements that do not provide insight into the reasons for that evaluation, may lead to a violation of the obligation to state reasons. A change in the assessment can also turn the burden of proof in favor of the student. In the case of oral exams, the examiner must take notes on the questions and answers asked, and these must be presented when the student wishes to view his exams. If only the questions were noted, but not the answers, this leads to a violation of the motivation and reasonableness principles. 

We can assist you in making such appeals against arbitrary decisions.