Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission
to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]
As readers will know, many school jurisdictions closed schools and shifted to online ‘learning’ in March 2020. I put quotation marks around learning because the application and success of online learning was and continues to be – let us say – uneven.
One 17-year-old sought to repeat Grade 11 because he wanted to improve his already strong academic standing so that he may pursue a scholarship to a high ranking university, and the possibility of earning a place on an NCAA baseball team. He felt that time missed due to medical absences prior to COVID-19 and the educational situation during COVID-19 deprived him of the solid foundation for further study and the pursuit of his goals.
The counselor said that she thought that would be fine, but that she wanted to check with the school’s administration. Two weeks later, the parents received an email informing them that their son’s request to repeat grade 11 was denied. The parents sought a review of the decision by the school’s principal. The school reaffirmed its decision to deny the student the opportunity to re-enroll in grade 11.
In denying the opportunity, the parents were told their son’s grades were “good enough” and that they “will not go down” [from the 87 average he had earned based on the work he had completed prior to the shutdown]. They were also told that, if their son had been afforded the opportunity to repeat grade 11, it would be unfair to other students. When they reminded the school that he seeks admission to a highly competitive school, the school said, “we’re not in the scholarship business.”
I tried to discuss the matter with the vice-principal of the school. I made clear that I was planning to write a blog about the issue and wanted to understand the situation from the perspective of the school’s administration. I stressed that is was not my intention to name the student, the school, or the school board, and that I had the parent’s consent to discuss the matter. I said that “I would be grateful if you would confirm the school’s decision and its reasons for the decision before I write and post the blog.”
In an e-mail exchange with the vice-principal, he informed me that “the [School Board] does not share or discuss matters related to individual students, even with parent permission, for privacy reasons. As such, I cannot provide comment.” The vice-principal is wrong. Privacy protection does not prevent a parent from authorizing someone to discuss such situations with school officials. If they could, that would prevent a parent from having the assistance of an advocate or a lawyer.
I did not correct the vice-principal. I thanked him for his reply and asked about the grounds for denying anyone under the same circumstances the opportunity to repeat. If there is policy, please refer me to that policy.
He replied by sending me a link to the board’s policy that, in essence, said the decision was subject to the exercise of the discretion of the school administration. I had already obtained the board’s policy and learned that it leaves such matters to the school’s administration.
The parents never received a written decision stating the reasons for denying the request. The reasons provided to the parents verbally seem arbitrary and unreasonable in failing to give sufficient regard to the student’s educational plans. Moreover, the failure to provide written reasons for such a decision is a breach of procedural fairness. To appeal such a decision, there needs to be a written reason explaining the grounds for denying the student the opportunity.
The decision of the school struck me as inconsistent with the mission statement in the mandate statement for the school system in British Columbia.
The purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy.
It is also inconsistent with section
1 of the School
Act that defines an educational program as one “designed to enable learners
to become literate, to develop their individual potential and to acquire
the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy,
democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy”
(emphasis supplied).
It is also at variance with the practices common in many school districts to offer specialty programs to enable students to pursue their interests and abilities, subject to the school board’s capacities and fiscal circumstances. For example, in addition to French Immersion programming and alternative schools of various kinds, there are public schools that offer programs for high performing athletics or arts students that allow those students to combine a half-day of schooling with a half day in a gymnasium or concert hall.
According to my reading of the provincial regulations and subsequent verification with the Ministry of Education, there is nothing that would prevent a student taking or seeking to repeat classes at a particular grade level as long as the student is of school age. Moreover, there is no limit to the number of credits a student can earn toward graduation. In this light, the reasons given to the parents verbally seem capricious and to my way of thinking mean-spirited.
The student was determined to repeat the grade. Undaunted by the absurdity of the school’s decision, the young man will pursue his desire to further his education at an independent (private) school even though it requires sacrifices by his family.
I was impressed by the student’s mature judgement – something I lacked at his age. I was dismayed by the decision of the school to deny him the opportunity to further his education and by the lack of procedural fairness. He has shown persistence in the face of small-mindedness. When he told me the story, he was unfailingly polite about the school’s decision and personnel, exhibiting maturity of another kind. An equally determined student whose parents did not have the ability to use part of their retirement savings for an independent school would probably have had his or her initiative stifled.
There are four take-aways for parents and educators. One is that decisions must be supported by written reasons. Without them, a parent is unable to effectively appeal under Section 11 of the BC School Act. A second is that parents are entitled to authorize others to assist them in pursuing matters of this kind. The school board has no ability to limit disclosing information if the parent consents. A third is that there is nothing in regulation or legislation that would prevent a student taking or seeking to repeat classes at a particular grade level as long as the student is of school age. Fourth, there is no limit to the number of credits a student can earn toward graduation.