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).

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

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

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

  
  

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

If suspect child of possible SEN, alert YHs