# data[].attributes.body
Positive:

The teacher takes his role seriously.

The teacher laid down expectations before the test.

The teacher is alert and vigilant.

Negative:

The teacher took his role TOO seriously.

The students are "smarter", finding new ways.

The teacher did not give a chance for the students to explain.

The teacher did not get enough information before meeting parent.

The teacher's body language allowed parent to step all over him.

The students does not respect teacher (calls him on first name basis).

# data[].attributes.body
Fortunately tr was vigilant and wanted to create a conducive environment for assessment.

Unfortunately he did not provide opportunity for the students to clarify their actions, nor did he address the emotions

# data[].attributes.body
Fortunately...

Responsible invigilator

Gave clear instructions

Cheating stopped in time

Good parent-child relationship and hence girl had someone to tell the truth to

Unfortunately...

One-sided conversation, students did not have a voice

Based on assumption

Did not investigate thoroughly before meeting the parent

Not so confident when speaking to parent

Child had a lapse in judgement - should not pass the note

Parent was rude and self-entittled

# data[].attributes.body
Fortunately

Teacher was able to stop the cheating in time.

He spoke to the two girls in private.

Parent made a point to come to the school to explain for the girls.

Unfortunately

He assumed guilt without allowing students to explain themselves.

Parent was more defensive about the child than trying to resolve the issue.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Fortunately, he was vigilant in the supervision for the classroom

Unfortunately, he is micro-managing the actions of each student individually

2. Fortunately the mum is willing to come.

Unfortunately, he did not get statements / written accounts / clarifying

3. Unfortunately, there was no SOP/exam protocol read out.

Fortunately, most of them are on task.

4. Fortunately, they were allowed to complete the paper

Unfortunately, the note passing happened.

# data[].attributes.body
Qn 1: FT will call to inform the parent about the incident first. The discipline team/ SM team should then follow up with the parents to inform them about the consequences of the major offence.

Qn 2: There was no lapse in duty of care. The teacher followed through and informed the parents immediately. The parents consented to allow the child to stay back in school.

Qn 3: Student Z felt that way as he had accepted the apology and moved on.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The form teacher should call to inform the students’ parents.

2. There was no lapse in duty of care by the teachers because they have done their due diligence to inform the parents about Z’s dizziness. The decision of Z’s parents to keep Z in school is beyond the school’s control.

3. Z likely felt confused because he had to process the incident twice. Since A had already apologised, the students may feel confused about why the school is bringing up the incident.

# data[].attributes.headline
P1 Number 1, better than the better than the best!

# data[].attributes.subject
P1 Number 1, better than the better than the best!

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: Form Teachers of Students A & Z should call.

Why:

FTs of students has established rapport with parents. Hence, FTs should be the ones calling.

FTs calling vs YH/ SH may seem like it's less serious.

Q2:

Yes, subject teachers may not know what has happened during recess/ across classes.

Parents of Z may not know that Z's dizziness was caused by the recess incident as FTs may still be investigating the incident that happened during recess.

Q3:

Consequence was meted out before investigation was done in this case.

Maybe a better solution to reduce this is to ensure all investigations are done before any consequences are meted out.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1.

Form / Subject Teacher (if subject teacher was the teacher on duty). They have some rapport with the parents already and the parents will not panic as much and think of worst case scenarios.

Q2.

There was no lapse of Duty of Care, as the parent has already made the decision for the child to remain in school despite being updated by the teacher about the dizzy spell, provided the parents were alerted prior.

Suppose if the parents was not alerted yet, and child did not update the subject teacher, the subject teacher has done sufficiently in updating the parents in the current state of the child.

Q3.

The action carried out by the Form Teacher jumped the gun, while with correct intentions to resolve the issue, so it caused some confusion to Z

# data[].attributes.body
Qn 1: FTs should inform parents and partner with them for home support. FTs to get the student to STOP-THINK-DO.

# data[].attributes.body
FTs can cross-check with student for change at home or well-being, to find out the root cause of incompletion of homework.

If suspect child of possible SEN, alert YHs

# data[].attributes.body
Discuss with year head to come up / modify intervention measures. Monitor progress / update parents and have a behavioural contract. Follow YH/AYH advice

# data[].attributes.body
FTs to consolidate issue of not doing homework from all subject teachers.

FTs to call parents to inform about the issue as main poc, and find out the issues that the child may have in completing the work.

STs and FTs to coordinate how to support the child after understanding the issue/ family environment.