1

Independent Review Panel Report British School of Manila (BSM)

Sponsor: BSM Council of Trustees (COT) The Independent Review Panel (IRP) members:

Mr. Edgar Chua (Serving as Chair) Mr. Ulpiano Sarmiento (Member) Ms. Rochelle Dakanay-Galano (Member) Dr. William Parker (Member) Dr. Steven DeKrey (Member)

Period of Review: 1-12 March 2015 REVIEW SCOPE The IRP was convened to address conduct two functions:

1.0 To review BSM processes and practices dealing with plagiarism for year 12/13 students and how these are applied. 2.0 To review BSM support structures in place for students during the course of the IB diploma programme.

To conduct its work, the IRP reviewed BSM written documentation related to its charge which included:

School Handbooks (Family, Student, and Teacher Handbooks) were specifically reviewed in regard to:

o The Academic Honesty Policy , how it is communicated and enforced o Pastoral care policy and support structures for students, and o Expectations for faculty/staff in regard to enforcement of discipline.

Printed copies of presentations and other communications to stakeholders (chiefly, parents and students) related to academic honesty and consequences. This included a review of the academic honesty requirements of the International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma programme, which are non-negotiable for schools.

Confidential notes, anecdotal accounts and other documentation that demonstrated the manner in which BSM:

o Deals with academic honesty generally and how this has evolved over the recent past o Dealt with a specific case of academic dishonesty (Plagiarism) that was uncovered February 2, 2015 o Supported the school community after the death of a student on February 6th 2015.

The IRP was offered the opportunity to review a letter written to the Philippines Secretary of the Department of Education reportedly by a group of concerned parents about their feelings regarding some aspects of the school operations. The IRP, after consideration, declined to use anonymously sourced information. The IRP was also given full and unfettered access to BSM staff and other stakeholders. In the course of its review, the panel met with and/or interviewed the following stakeholders to review the school's pastoral care program, its policies, and the events that occurred on the 2nd - 6th of February 2015:

Seven School faculty, administration and support staff: regarding general school practices and responses following the incident on the 2nd - 6th February 2015, IB requirements

About eight year 13 students: regarding general school practices and policies and incidents on the 2nd-6th February 2015

Ten parents of year 13 students as well as students from other years: regarding school practices and policies and conduct of BSM after the incident.

The IRP was also provided some email correspondence from some interviewees to clarify statements.

An anonymous letter, purportedly from a group of BSM parents, was forwarded by Mrs. Trixie Madamba with a request that it interview a select list of parents and students. The note is silent as to:

2

The nature of the information the adults would share and why they were

nominated If the individuals named were willing to be interviewed, or knew they had been

nominated If the parents of the students who were nominated were aware of this.

Given these questions, the IRP determined to proceed without additional testimony, but would leave the option to consider further testimony if it was deemed needed (note that some of those on the list were already part of those that were interviewed). REVIEW FINDINGS Scope Area 1: To review BSM processes and practices dealing with plagiarism for year 12/13 students and how these are applied. 1.1 Is the plagiarism policy consistent with Philippine law? Does it make a difference that Liam was 18?

Finding:Plagiarism has been defined by the Supreme Court as a 'deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's original ideas or creative expression as one's own'. Thus plagiarism presupposes intent and a deliberate and conscious effort to steal another's work and pass it of as one's own.1

While the Plagiarism policy is consistent with Philippine law, there should be a leveling of the severity of the offense visa-vis the volume of work supposedly plagiarized which negates good faith or honest mistake. As ruled by the Supreme Court, an act of plagiarism presupposes deliberate intent. If negligence, or good faith/honest mistake can be established, there can be no finding of plagiarism.2

It makes no difference that Liam was 18. Philippine laws apply to the School. While there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Education and the Board of Trustees of the School, exemptions granted the school pertain only to the course curriculum, qualifications of faculty and administrators, the school calendar, and the student population. The School is clearly obligated to comply with DepEd regulations, particularly those which implement education legislations designed to promote and protect the best interest of the students; e.g. Child Abuse Law, Anti-Sexual Harassment Law, Anti-Bullying Law.

1.2 Is the plagiarism policy reasonable?

Finding: Yes. The BSM general rule prohibiting plagiarism and promoting academic honesty is consistent with other international schools in its scope and expectation.

1.3 Is the plagiarism policy clearly written?

Finding: The school defines plagiarism in a number of different, but consistent, ways and elaborates these through multiple iterations. While the school is extremely clear in its depiction of plagiarism as a major infraction of school expectations, it is far less clear in its description of penalty (outside of consequences for violating external requirements for IB), or the processes that it will follow in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of a student, the students' rights of due process, or for internal violations.

1. 4 Is the plagiarism policy communicated appropriately to student stakeholders and parents?

Finding: The school policy is clearly and regularly communicated to relevant stakeholders. It is shared with students of all grades over time in a progressive

1 In re: Charges of Plagiarism, etc. against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, 12 October 2010 2 DOJ Advisory Opinion on Plagiarism, Advisory Opinion No.2 (Series of 2012), 18 September 2012 - "However, plagiarism perse is not punishable as a crime under the IPC unless it amounts to a copyright infringement, xxx There are various exempting circumstances however that would absolve any person from a charge of copyright infringement. Among others, the limitations to the copyright protection under the IPC are: x x b. news of the day x x c. any work of the Government of the Philippines x xx"

3

age-appropriate manner. There was unanimous agreement by IB students interviewed what was meant by "plagiarism", and that it was a very serious offence. All agreed that there were resources in place to get help if necessary to avoid getting into trouble in this arena. However, the processes that the school will commit to follow to ascertain student guilt and the teaching/learning philosophies to be upheld when determining sanctions are not documented and, as a result, inconsistently followed. 3The students thus expressed some confusion with respect to the penalties that would be imposed upon violation of the policy. Further, there was some reported confusion regarding the role of a 'draft' assignment at BSM and whether students understand that drafts are to be treated as a submitted piece of work. This was not viewed as a material issue.

1.5 Is the process/practice for dealing with plagiarism documented for all stakeholders, including teachers?

Finding: The school does not outline in handbooks or in any policy reviewed by the IRP expectations for staff relating to how to deal with plagiarism or any major school offence -with the exception of Drug Use4. The same information presented to students and parents in regard to plagiarism is the same presented to teachers and lacks any process requirements. While some elements of the school's handling of cases of this type are consistent between staff (meeting with a senior staff member prior to communication with students, student's writing reflections), others are not. Further, some critical elements of discipline management are not codified by the school in any manner and are therefore left to the discretion of individual staff members. Included in these critical elements are:

o Student rights (including confidentiality) and due process to defend themselves, o A discipline philosophy5 o Expected staff deportment when administering discipline o Expected level of parent communication and at what point a parent should be notified o Consideration of any cultural differences between the students in the school and members of the faculty.

1.6 Are the formal penalties for acts of plagiarism at BSM reasonable?

Finding: The school reported that there are formal penalties for plagiarism, as well as processes that are intended to reduce future occurrences. The penalty(s) cited by the school can be labeled the 'natural' consequence of dishonesty, whereby the school refuses to accept the dishonest work and the students are required to re-do it to an acceptable level. In order to support students, the school also requires some level of supervised student detention. This is consistent with the practice in other schools, and, in fact, is gentler at BSM than in other places. In conversation with school staff, this is seen as the 'major' school-level consequence6.

The process that is intended to further ensure that students do not repeat academically dishonest behavior is to write a 'reflection statement' that is intended to encourage the student to think deeply about what their behavior meant to them and how it potentially impacted others. While a task of this sort may be structured in a number of ways, the school has in past cases has used the form of a 'letter' to focus student comments.

3 For example, the school has operated with an expectation that students should reflect on their behavior in some manner to promote their understanding of their offense and its consequences. However, this is reportedly inconsistently applied with some teachers reporting they read the students reflections while some do not. Further, in the case of the incidents on February 2nd, one student was given significantly more information regarding their punishment than was the other. 4 The school has made it clear in writing that plagiarism is a major offence but has not outlined steps for staff that are comparable in any way to those of drug use. 5 While the IRP can infer the philosophy of progressive discipline in some school practices, this is not labeled as such, and does not provide criteria for when it may not be applied, ie... major issues. As noted in school literature, out-of-school sanctions applied by the IB are far less tolerant and generally result in severe academic penalties that are beyond the school's ability to moderate in any way.

4

A Case Study In the case of two students on February 5, the reflection process was evidently also seen by students as a punishment. In fact, it was seen as a far more significant penalty than was the school-perceived major penalty. A review of the student letters is telling. Each student reflection letter focused on the shame they felt they deserved from their peers, family and teachers and how they had badly disappointed others. Neither letter mentioned the other (academic) penalty (if they thought it was fair or otherwise) or the broader effects of their academic dishonesty (the effect on the people from whom they copied and how their dishonesty made a consideration of what they learned impossible to assess and therefore deprived themselves of a learning experience, etc..). Further, neither student offered a constructive suggestion as to how they could avoid this in the future- a stated intent of the exercise. Since there are no written guidelines for the reflections, it is concluded that the directions given to both the students, who were in separate rooms when the letters were written, encouraged them to focus their reflection in this manner- as apologies. As a result of the oral directions they were apparently given or misunderstood, the students focused on their 'crime' and not on constructive ways to avoid this behavior in the future7. In this regard, the reflection letter became far more of a penalty than perhaps was intended when the deputy head and the teacher discussed it in the hall and, based on the products both students produced, is seen by the IRP as excessive and non-constructive. Of perhaps even greater import is that it appeared to the IRP, based on document review and interview, that there was significant confusion over the intended audience for these letters. While the IRP was informed that the only person who was to see the letters was the teacher, it appeared to the IRP that students were, at least initially, under the impression that these letters would be sent to the addressees. To do so would have potentially exposed the writer(s) to significant public humiliation and be counter to the school's stated philosophy8. In the case of one student, it was clear that this misconception was later resolved during a one-on-one conversation when the student demonstrated distress. In the other, however, there is only testimony that it was made clear to the student. Given the tragic conclusion, the IRP cannot make a definitive determination one way or another whether both students were given the same message. 1.7 Is the disciplinary process for acts of Plagiarism consistently applied in all settings?

Finding: The lack of formal guidelines and procedures, as well as anecdotal descriptions provided by some members of staff, indicates that this is not the case.

1.8 Is the disciplinary process consistent with the school philosophy, other schools practice and IB requirements?

Finding: The present BSM disciplinary process is insufficiently documented to make this judgment. Schools are mandated to implement a disciplinary process consistent with the laws and DepEd regulations. However, the philosophy (progressive/non punitive) shared in interviews behind BSM school discipline is consistent with other schools.

Scope Area 2: To review BSM support structures in place for students during the course of the IB diploma programme. 2.1 Does the school monitor the on-going pastoral/emotional needs of IB Diploma students? 7 The school is silent in its directions regarding the reflections. One teacher related that they did not intend to read them at all- an educational practice the IRP finds highly questionable- how do teachers know if the exercise is useful or has had the desired effect if they do not read them? If an assignment of this sort does not promote the intended result, it should be discontinued or modified. 8 One student reported that apology letters written by some students to others were sent at some point in the past. Whether this was true or not, this belief lent credence to the idea that other letters would be sent as well and heightened anxiety.

5

Finding: Yes, the school does monitor the mental well-being of students in the IB program. The school has processes in place to identify and support students over time.

2.2 Is the pastoral and related disciplinary program clearly documented for all stakeholders?

Finding: The school has disciplinary structures in place, but relies on each teacher having a common, and shared, unwritten philosophy. There is no guarantee that this is the case and there are no standard policy and procedures in place to support a single philosophy on which to base actions. The disciplinary program, perhaps more constructively named "Environment for Learning" program, is not adequately documented.

2.3 Is this program supported by qualified professionals?

Finding: Yes. While there are established positions like the guidance counselor and form tutors to support the program, the eligibility of these professionals under Philippine laws must likewise be considered.

2. 4 Does the school have emergency pastoral plans in place to treat school emergencies?

Finding: The school reacted to the crisis on February 6 aggressively, in terms of pastoral care and continues to provide support. However, the handling of the emergency/crisis especially the communication side to the public has given the impression to a number of stakeholders that the school was defensive, stonewalling and insensitive.

RECOMMENDATIONS Given recent events, BSM cannot continue operating solely, on 'trust' and shared personal values to guide student management. While parents have 'trusted' the school in the past (parents interviewed mostly said they believed the school consistently knows and does what is best for their children, and faculty argue strongly that personal relationships cannot/should not be mandated), that era must end to protect both students and the school by reducing opportunities for aberrant behavior on the part of anyone. The events of February 6, 2015 indicate to the IRP that some changes must be made to provide the school with a formally reviewed and comprehensive set of expectations related to student management. To do this the school should: 1. Formally articulate a school Environment for Learning Philosophy. It should use this philosophy to generate:

a. Policy related to stakeholder relations, particularly faculty to student, to prevent educational malpractice such as favoritism or bullying. b. A clear and practical discipline program for the school that includes the rights of all stakeholders as well as their expectations. c. A review of the sufficiency of the cultural on-boarding for all staff especially faculty. Note that year 12 and 13 are majority local/Asian background.

2. While this is in progress the school should, with urgency, critically review all penalties to ensure that they are reasonable and culturally and educationally appropriate. 3. The school should define 'major events' and generate a system for treatment that reduces chances for misunderstanding.

a. Given February 6th, it may be that BSM will need to have more than one person in the room during all significant disciplinary events. b. While each disciplinary case is unique, there should be a standard approach such as a common self-reflection process followed by constructive

6

mentoring/coaching9. 4. Review the school- home-school communications protocol, policy and expectations for all matters. Specific actions are:

a. The contract concerning student and parent awareness of the rules and consequences (as contained in the student handbook and family handbook) should be clearly explained and require that they are signed and turned in. b. Review policy on relying on the students to be the first to inform their parents of issues at school instead of the school administration.

FURTHER ADVICE TO THE COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES The IRP was given a set of specific references to address in the course of its work for the school. During its investigations they were presented with a variety of views and perspectives on additional matters- with the cooperation of school authorities- that exceeded the scope of those terms of reference. In fact, since the panel was convened and since its last meeting together, unsolicited information has been sent to Panel to address what different constituencies believe the panel school know and act on. In the interest of respecting the information provided from both perspectives the IRP would offer further advice for consideration. While not in the terms of reference, the IRP would suggest that:

a. The school reviews its handling of the February 6 event and its crisis management plan. While the school community is highly pleased with the handling of student pastoral issues, it is also very critical of the public treatment of the event. In addition to the tragedy itself, the school is being hurt by the on-going publicity the event has generated. b. Review oversight procedures for handling situations where a staff or faculty is involved and the subject of a complaint, e.g. 30 day preventive suspension pending investigation of the incident without prejudice to the guilt or innocence of staff/faculty involved. c. Ensure that the profile of the students that have been researched (which is a very good practice) is disseminated to relevant faculty and is read by faculty before any disciplinary action to ensure a good understanding of the background of the student. d. Consider convening an additional independent investigation on the incident of February 6th to determine if all the staff involved followed school policy and expectations in their spirit. e. This panel has no mandate and/or capability for an investigation as suggested above, but it is impossible to conclude this report without including some common impressions:

That the February 5 incident involving the student Liam Madambawas in some way connected to the school's finding of plagiarism and the manner in which the school treated it.

The two students in the February 5 incident were supported differently The school should take steps to address the divisions that have

manifested recently as a result of the incident.

9 The requirement of reflection to assist students to consider their behavior(s) and their impact is an accepted school practice.

7

Addendum to the Special Report submitted to the of the British School Manila by the Independent Review Panel

Introduction: Subsequent to the submission of the IRP report the IRPO was presented with additional documentation by the school administration and Board that had relevance to its findings. Such documentation was not originally provided given the IRPO went beyond the given Terms of Reference which was very narrow and specific to a review of plagiarism for year 12/13 students and how these are applied, and the support structures for students in the course of the IB Diploma programme. Most notably this documentation included:

The school Teaching and Learning Policy The school anti-bullying policy The school Child protection policy Summaries of school communications related to the February 5th incident Evidence of parent orientation processes (Powerpoint) Pastoral Care policy The school Complaints procedures

Individual members of both the BSM Boards also offered some suggestions and requests related to the report and in some cases spoke to individual members of the IRP. Based on this new data the IRP would offer the modifications below to its findings.

1. The IRP would agree with a concern raised that naming individuals who were interviewed, or otherwise identified in the report, could violate their privacy. The IRP would, therefore, agree that in any publication of the report that those names be withheld. The names were included only to clarify for the IRPs primary audience, the Board of Trustees, what was done in their name.

2. The IRP would agree that the finding related to 2.02 "The school has disciplinary structures in place, but relies on each teacher having a common, and shared, unwritten philosophy. There is no guarantee that this is the case and there are no standard policy and procedures in place to support a single philosophy on which to base actions. The disciplinary program, perhaps more constructively named "environment for Learning" program, is not adequately documented." should be amended. Based primarily on a review of the school Teaching and Learning Policy (not in evidence earlier) there is now evidence that the school does outline expectations in a manner that should provide all employees clear guidance. The IRP, however, finds the policy lacking: in providing for the specific steps that must be followed by the school in dealing with serious disciplinary cases involving students to ensure the students' and the parents' right to due process as required by the Department of Education and Philippine jurisprudence.

The portions of the T&L policy that outlines expectations and should provide clear guidance to all employees are as follows:

Teachers support the School's philosophy and objectives statement by: promoting students' self-esteem in order to help them build positive

relationships with others, nurturing students' emotional, intellectual, spiritual, creative and physical

well-being, In providing an environment for learning, the School will seek to promote:

a safe atmosphere supported by the effective use of strategies to encourage appropriate behaviour,

high self-image and self-esteem, Feedback to students should:

build every student's self-esteem through sensitive constructive comments, encourage, motivate and reward, be explicit, identify misunderstandings or gaps in learning, give insight on how to improve further.

Excellence in achievement/effort is celebrated by: Encouraging students to believe that any work to be displayed should represent

the highest standards of their own personal effort and achievement. The Assistant Heads will:

8

review teaching and learning and professional development each academic year through performance management. Teachers will be observed as part of this process,

monitor how effective teaching and learning strategies are in terms of raising student attainment.

3) IRP would also amend its previous judgment related to

1.06 -as to the disciplinary processes the school requires. Change- There is, in fact, a clear expectation that a reflective process will be used to educate students as to their responsibilities and school expectations. Further, the other expectations cited above in the T&L Policy give clear guidance as the nature of the expected reflection the student should perform.

1.07 Finding "The lack of formal guidelines and procedures, as well as anecdotal descriptions provided by some members of staff, indicates that this is not the case." Change- While there is no formal behavior procedure, the Teaching and Learning Policy provides ample formal guidance (guidelines) for actions.

1.08 - "Is the disciplinary process consistent with the school philosophy, other schools practice and IB requirements?" The present BSM disciplinary process is insufficiently documented to make this judgment". Change- the process of reflection is an expectation and sufficiently documented for a staff member to apply this in the spirit of the school philosophy. While added detail would be desirable (and according to the school -planned) any capable staff member should be able to use the teaching and learning policy to craft an appropriate response to student infractions of rules.

It is clear from above that BSM has in place documentation for most of the policies and procedures required. However, if and how it is implemented in every case is beyond the scope of the IRP but should be a serious consideration the school should undertake given the Feb S incident.