Secondary School-leaving Examination

We informed the petitioners that the rules were changing due to the reform of the final examination system. 2005 is the last year when the language examination of intermediate level, type 'C' in the given language, which is approved by the state, can replace secondary school-leaving examination in a language. From 2006 the language examination can not affect the result of the secondary school-leaving examination, every student should take secondary school-leaving examination in at least one foreign language. (K-OJOG-44/2003., K-OJOG-375/2003., K-OJOG-401/2003.)

We informed the petitioners that pursuant to Paragraph (9) of Article 30 of the Public Education Act, if a student gained exemption from evaluation and grading in a certain subject in secondary school, then for the secondary school-leaving examination he may choose another subject instead of the subject in concern. (K-OJOG-108/2003., K-OJOG-367/2003., K-OJOG-423/2003. K-OJOG-795/2003.)

The head of a school asked us whether the above rule could mean that the parents' association can not delegate a parent whose child takes the examination in a given class into the examination committee of the class. We informed her that the regulation does not exclude the parent completely from the work of the examination committee. It is only the work connected to the questions concerning his relative that he can not participate in. Thus, he can be a member of the examination committee and can exercise the relevant rights, except when the examination of his child is in progress or the performance of his child is being evaluated.(K-OJOG-334/2003.)

A petitioner claimed that his written examination was marked unsatisfactory because he copied the solution from one of his peers. He complained about this claiming that his distance from the other student taking the examination made copying impossible. Therefore he submitted a request for examining compliance with the law. OKÉV, acting at second instance, did not find the request justified, so confirmed the decision of the examination committee. The reasons of the decision only mentioned that based on the submitted documents they could not state infringement of the regulation, and were of the opinion that weaker mark was not awarded in a way neglecting regulations.

The Public Education Act declares that OKÉV is bound to apply the provisions of Act IV/1957. on the General Rules of State Administration Procedures in its procedures. This also means that the decision passed by OKÉV shall comply with the formal and content requirements set in the State Administration Procedures Act.

Under Section c) of Paragraph (1) of Article 43 of the Act the reasons of the decision should contain - among others - the determination of the actual circumstances and the proofs accepted as its basis, the proof offered by the client but ignored, and the reasons for ignoring them. The facts considered and ignored in the given case should be highlighted in the explanation section of the decision. We concluded that the decision did not prove that OKÉV had adequately investigated the actual circumstances. However, this content error questions the validity of the content of the operative part of the decision. No justified decision can be passed with inadequately investigated actual circumstances. In the absence of adequate reasons the decision passed may seem arbitrary, because it can not be clarified how the authority reached the established stand, and whether its stand is correct. Furthermore, explanation is needed so that the client can enforce his/her right to legal remedy in an appropriate way. Based on the above we concluded that the decision of OKÉV infringed the law and initiated the dismissal of the condition of infringement of rights.

OKÉV accepted our initiative and within its sphere of authority provided in the State Administration Procedures Act supplemented the original decision. We concluded that the supplemented explanation fulfilled legal requirements. (K-OJOG-284/2003.)

The list of the subjects of the examination (within this the compulsory and elective academic subjects, the vocational subjects and the art subjects separately), the form of the examination and the general examination requirements are contained by the Secondary School-leaving Examination Decree. However, these rules shall be applied only for the examinations of the secondary school students who started their secondary school studies in grade 9 on 1 September 2001 or subsequent to that. Assumedly Paragraph (2) of Article 62 of the Secondary School-leaving Examination Decree wishes to ensure agreement with the listed regulations that keeps certain provisions of GÉV in effect exactly until the class starting grade 9 in 2001 reaches secondary school-leaving examination.

Under the regulation, the new rules do not apply to students starting grade 9 before 1 September 2001 even if due to some reason they do not reach secondary school-leaving examination at the expected time - in 2004, or in 2005 in the case of secondary schools operating with thirteen grades. The regulation marks 1 September 2001 as an objective date, does not recognise other exceptions than the students of secondary schools operating with thirteen grades, so from the aspect of effectiveness, it is irrelevant why the student takes the secondary school-leaving examination later (e.g. repeating a grade, postponing a grade).

The Secondary School-leaving Examination Decree explicitly excludes its own application in the case of those starting their studies in grade 9 before 1 September 2001 but taking the secondary school-leaving examination after 31 January 2005. For their examination the provisions of GÉV can not be applied either because by that time GÉV will be out of effect - this is also regulated by the Secondary School-leaving Examination Decree. Therefore, there is no rule that applies to their secondary school-leaving examination. In the absence of rule it can not be determined which subjects are the compulsory subjects of secondary school-leaving examination for those who started grade 9 before 1 September 2001 but take secondary school-leaving examination after 31 January 2005. (In the case of students of secondary schools operating with thirteen grades this issue arises one year later.) The difficulties of interpretation are shown by the fact that OKÉV and the Department of Education Management of the Ministry of Education reached opposing conclusions in the question.

Furthermore, it should be noted that this is obviously true for several provisions of the Secondary School-leaving Examination Decree, because the same rules apply to their applicability as to the applicability of the rules concerning examination subjects. So the same is true for provisions concerning the examination types, the examination periods, the process of oral examination, the evaluation of the examination and the issuing of certificates.

The lack of regulation gravely infringes the constitutional requirement of the rules of law and the assurance of law, and endangers the practice of the right to education provided in Paragraph (1) of Article 70/F of the Constitution. The administers of law - the institutions organising the examinations as well as the students taking the examination - are kept in uncertainty and the students taking the examination may be forced to fulfil requirements that are not prescribed to them. Finally it may result in the invalidity of the examinations carried out without regulation support. Therefore, we turned to the Minister of Education with the legislative proposal to ensure the codification of the missing regulations (K-OJOG-693/2003.)