I don’t think that it is “ludicrous” to miss school for a non-academic pursuit – many kids do it – but I do think that it is irrational to assume that the travel will necessarily be accommodated and supported. Basically, that’s a choice that parents and students make. My daughter did a foreign exchange and it negatively impacted her GPA & her course schedule. She was able to work things out well enough with the home school so that she graduated on time and she ended up doing well for college admissions – but some things couldn’t be fixed. She had a valuable experience that will stay with her for life - no question at all that it was a wonderful opportunity and far more meaningful than whatever high school AP classes she might have taken instead. But it was an eyes-open choice with the recognition that it would result in an overall weaker high school record. Being away quite simply meant that she couldn’t do some of the traditional high school academic things that were available to and expected of the kids who stuck around.
I’m not sure what you mean or you are just misunderstanding my post.
Of course the schools club robotics team is important.
A “club or travel team” is made up of students from outside schools. Like aau or special regional lacrosse and soccer teams. They are not bringing home ribbons to the school. They are separate outside activities. That’s what she was missing school to be part of as it is alleged.
My example was a group of kids from many different schools create their own robotics team to compete somewhere. Great ec. But you don’t get to miss calc to build a new machine or head to some random tournament without consequences. It’s an absence like any other. And repeated absences have consequences.
We had parents fighting our school over missed classes for ECs and family travel all the time. The official rule was that you weren’t to miss school for anything other than illness, but we had quite a few kids (this was a k-8 school) on travel hockey teams, ice skating competitions, tennis. One family left early once a week for piano lessons. It is very disruptive. The official rule was that home work was made up after the class was missed, not before, and teachers didn’t have to provide a packet for missed work. Some teachers did, but most did not. Parents didn’t like it. Teachers didn’t like parents complaining. Administration fell back on the rules, and if you didn’t like it you could leave. The tennis player left (his sister became a skier and she missed a lot of school too).
Families did miss school for vacations too. One very prominent family took the entire week off for Thanksgiving every year. No one ever said anything to them and their kids weren’t docked grades.
We had to follow the rules. My kids missed 4 days when we went to China. It was a huge deal to plan and make up the work. We didn’t even miss school for dentist or ortho appointments.
@privatebanker: No, no misunderstanding.
That the school’s name is not branded on the award was fully understood.
The point was that glory follows those who do well, and press.
“But it was an eyes-open choice with the recognition that it would result in an overall weaker high school record. Being away quite simply meant that she couldn’t do some of the traditional high school academic things that were available to and expected of the kids who stuck around.”
“Eyes-open choice” is a great way to phrase this choice, without attaching to it any expectation that the school will accommodate the student for opportunities foregone among the school’s offerings.
Exactly. And the school did a LOT to accommodate and support, but there were also compromises that needed to be made, things my daughter had to give up on, including a few items where there was miscommunication or misunderstanding and her expectations were not fully met. I really don’t remember the details because my daughter was proactive in making all of the arrangements on her own – my only direct involvement was to advise my daughter to try to get any agreements in writing, so there would be a record of the understanding down the line.
And I’d assume that’s the same for any other sort of travel or EC’s that result in missed school & assignments.
That’s life. When there are competing interests, adjustments have to be made. Each person determines their own priorities. And no one else is required to agree with or support one person’s choices.
Issuance of search warrants is definitely based on probable cause. When the Supreme Court decides to hear a case, are there not a lot of probabilistic analyses by the Justices. Is the case important enough to hear? Is that clear cut? If it were, there would not be split opinions about granting certiorari. Is there a reason to just go with “stare decisis” or is this something the Court should review? What are the probable issues raised by this case? How much do I (the Justice) dislike the decision in Lemon (for example), and do it want it to be reviewed and possibly overturned–or do I run the risk that it becomes even more entrenched in the law?
Is it not the case that Dayo was on a travel track team? I would think that the teachers would be accommodating of students who were on the school team. Out-of-state travel for track meets was mentioned in the court documents.
I still think a math tutor was the way to go–much cheaper than the lawsuit, and probably cheaper than enrolling in an advanced math course somewhere else.
“Probable cause” in legal parlance is not the same as a statistical analysis. It’s a reasonable person thing NOT “what do we think probably happened” - but is the evidence enough to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that such-and-such crime has been committed.
And when it comes to granting cert, it is very clear from the petitions submitted to the Supreme Court what the issues are – at that point there are never any factual issues to be determined, only legal. So there is certainly room for debate, but it is never going to be about what’s “probable” – though you are right that an individual Justice’s vote on whether to grant cert might be based on considerations of probable outcome.
I agree with you that a math tutor would have made sense, but my sense was that the kid & parents were in denial at the time. The kid was in constant conflict throughout the school year with the Math II teacher over grades, but it seems like they were pretty much stuck on proving the teacher wrong rather than addressing whatever difficulties or deficiencies were giving rise to the weaker grades.
I’d point out that teachers sometimes have good reasons to be more accommodating of some students than others, simply because of the perceived ability or needs of the student. That is, a teacher might be a lot more forgiving of an athlete who is getting 100% on the quizzes and exams than a student who is doing C work. My son was able to convince his advanced level high school math teachers to waive homework requirements for him entirely, because he clearly understood the math and aced all the exams. So for him, the homework really was unneeded busy work. But he needed to demonstrate his ability first – I’m sure there is no way in the world those teachers would have agreed to the same sort of waiver for kids who were doing anything less than consistent A level work. I once got a D in high school math where I had 100% on all the exams… but had not bothered to turn in any of the homework, something my more rigid math teacher was unwilling to forgive.
I hate to mention this so late in the game (finally got up the courage to tackle this thread today), but you all do know that all of the briefing and court orders are public record in the DC Superior Court records, right? Free to read by all, no speculation required. I couldn’t figure out how to link to the docket, so you are going to have to all look it up for yourselves. 
It will take you about 10 minutes to scroll to the end of the docket and click on the order.
Gist is, the court dismissed the breach of contract (settlement agreement) claims based on the Plaintiff’s failure to allege damages (emotional distress isn’t good enough in contract claims).
For the retaliation claims, the court sided with Sidwell because the only evidence Plaintiff offered were her own interpretations and opinions of what happened. Not facts. The court found that Sidwell’s explanations of why grades were or weren’t changed, or how Dayo was evaluated as to different schools as reasonable, and ultimately the Adetus’ dissatisfaction with Sidwell’s actions does not create a question of fact as to their propriety.
I have to admit that I do not understand how the distinction you are making between statistical analysis and “reasonable person thing” applies to my statements in this case, calmom. I look at situations and make an assessment of what I think is most probable. That seems to me to be consistent with the idea of the “reasonable person” view. It does seem to bother posters who only want settled facts. There is no good way to do a statistical analysis in this case that I can think of, short of presenting 500 math teachers with a situation, asking “what would you do,” and tallying the answers.
From CateCAParent’s post, I deduce that one can breach a contract if the other party cannot allege officially recognizable damages in the situation? Then the Court would probably not have reached the point of assessing whether the contract had actually been breached or not. Is that correct? I suspect that is still an open question. We have the Adetus’ claim that the settlement agreement was breached. It sort of looks to me as though it was.
If I were ever to enter into a settlement agreement with anyone, I would expect it to be honored. In my personal ethical system, the more powerful party (the school, in this case) always needs to be particularly solicitous of the rights of the less powerful party (the student and family). I realize this is not necessarily the way the world works. But I’d expect that it would, if observant Quakers were in charge.
I would not assume that the school is the more powerful party in this case
You’re not the legal system, QM. You’re an outside observer, free to form opinions however you wish. Don’t expect them to hold water. The law describes a complex set of relationships and expectations, before deciding. “Damages” is a particular element, when applicable. ‘Probable Cause’ also.
No court says, “Well, I know some schools are unfair, so let’s judge for the plaintiffs.” You can. But again you’re not the legal system.
But this isn’t about your view. Yes, we can lean on the issues as presented, be analytical, not emotional. The bottom line is: the complaints don’t prove out. No supposition required. No concerns for feelings, no maybes. The complaints aren’t matched by facts.
Just like in science.
I don’t think this an accurate summary. Instead, the facts often aren’t clear. We often don’t know whether the allegations are true or not because there is not sufficient evidence. A lack of evidence means we don’t know all the facts. We can speculate who did what and why they may or may not have done so, but those speculations are not facts.
One fact is a judge ruled in favor of Sidwell in whether a breach of the earlier settlement occurred. However, this does not mean all of the earlier settlement allegations are not accurate. Instead many of the earlier settlement allegations are not relevant to whether a breach of settlement occurred and do not appear to be evaluated. For example, one of the settlement allegations was that the math II teacher did not make athletic allowances for Dayo, like she did for the other students in the class. This is not directly relevant to whether the a breach of settlement occurred because the settlement specified no retaliation against Dayo in response to the settlement, and the math II class occurred prior to the settlement. As such, it does not appear to have been evaluated in the breach of settlement lawsuit. Maybe it occurred. Maybe it did not. Maybe there was a valid reason for it occurring, such as only making athletic allowances for students who are doing well in the class. Maybe it more relates to the math II teacher not being a fan of Dayo and the Adetus. We can only speculate – not facts.
Regarding the math grading, the settlement required that Sidwell recalculate the grades in the specified math classes and update Dayo’s transcript with any grade changes by Sept 30th. The judge agreed with the Adetus that Dayo’s trasncript was not updated by the Sept 30th deadline. However, they did not find evidence of the unmodified transcript being sent to colleges, lessening damage effects.
The judge ruled that there was no evidence that the recalculation of Dayo’s Math II grades was performed in bad faith. The Adetus claimed “bad faith” for a variety of reasons including the teacher shredding grading books after being instructed by the headmaster to keep them. The teacher claims it was her standard practice to destroy them after the school year, which the judge found to be a reasonable explanation, so a lack of evidence of bad faith, only speculation. The Adetus claim an exam was used in the grading that did not occur. With no grade book, there was a lack of evidence, so the judge found lack of evidence – not that it did not occur, that it was speculation. There were also other grading related allegations in the settlement that were not relevant to breach of settlement lawsuit. For example, the Adetus mention two instances in which the math 2 teacher admitted grading errors on Dayo’s exams when challenged in public, but none when challenged in private. This is not directly relevant to whether the recalculation was done in good faith because the modified exam grades occurred prior to the settlement and as such were presumably used in the recalculation.
To be clear, I am not claiming that the settlement allegations are true, nor am I claiming that are were false. Instead I am saying that we don’t know many of the key facts about what happened, leading to speculating about what may or may not have happened.
No, that’s not what happened. We don’t have to speculate as to what the Court “probably” did because we have the opinion of the trial court to refer to – that’s what I have been quoting from. Here’s the link – the trial court decision starts at page 19: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1356/97268/20190423135448437_Adetu%20Appendix%20E%20File%20Apr%2023%202019.pdf
It is true that the elements of a claim for breach of contract include actionable damages – but in this case the court also held that there was no evidence of material breach; (Elements of breach of contract: (1) a valid contract between the parties; (2) an obligation or duty arising out of contract; (3) a breach of that duty; and (4) damages caused by breach.”). (See page 6 to 7 in the file above, from the court of appeals opinion; and page 27)
The terms of the contract were that Sidwell would pay $50K to the family and that the grades for the Math II and Calculus class would be reviewed in good faith, with no promises made as to outcome; and also that the process of review would be completed by a date certain in September. The teachers did their review well ahead of schedule – the Math II teacher stood firm; the Calculus teacher changed the fall grade from A- to A after realizing that he had mistakenly failed to omit the lowest exam grade for all the students in the class, but he did not revise the spring B+ grade.
[quote]
Although plaintiffs assert that the grade recalculations for the spring 2013 semester of Calculus and
both semesters of Math II were erroneous and therefore breached the settlement agreement, the methodologies employed by Mr. Markey and Ms. Koziebrodzka to perform the recalculations do not violate the express terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement is silent as to the proper method for recalculating the grades. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement suggests that plaintiffs are required to accept the results of the grade recalculations if they were performed in good faith, as Sidwell “offers no guarantees as to any change in results.”/quote
The school was late in getting the transcripts corrected, but even though they missed the September deadline the transcript was corrected before transmission to any colleges, so it was not a “material” breach as it did not impact the outcome of the agreement.
The trial court held that since there was no evidence of bad faith in the Math II teachers decision to maintain the C/C+ grade, there was no breach of the agreement – because the agreement did not require or mandate that she change the grade.
And the court found that it had been, or at least that the plaintiff had not produced any evidence that it hadn’t.
The trial court did not address the issue of damages – that came up in the Court of Appeals, which decided it didn’t even have to reach the underlying facts because the complaint also failed on the damages element. So the trial court made a determination on elements 1, 2, and 3 of breach of contract; and the Court of Appeals pointed out that it also failed on element 4.
Or, to put things another way – when you cut through all of the details, the parents & plaintiff in this case wanted the transcript to reflect all A’s in math on her college apps. Having sophomore grades of C, C+ and junior grades of A-, B+ was not a good thing in terms of college admission.
The school entered an agreement where they promised to review the grades but did not promise any outcome
So the end result was the student had a transcript submitted with a C, C+, A, B+ and the student also was not admitted into the reach colleges where she applied. It probably is true that her grades were a factor, especially if she was applying as a prospective engineering major and competing against other Sidwell students who had all A’s in math.
But it wasn’t a breach of contract because Sidwell had never agreed to change all the grades to A’s in the first place.
Competing within the Sidwell pool, within the group of Sidwell kids wanting stem, but also with other strong candidates, prep or not, in the DC area.
I looked at the Appendix Table of Contents from the Supreme Court document linked by calmom, and believe that the statement on page App. 7a from the Judgment of the Court of Appeals is consistent with what I have posted: “In reviewing this decision de novo, we need not address whether a material breach occurred because the Adetus’ argument fails for another reason: they seek damages that may not properly be awarded under our case law.” Damages could not properly be awarded because the complaint was based on emotional distress. This applies to Counts 1, 2, and 5 of the amended complaint.
Because all four conditions are required for the court to find remediable breach, and damages are one of the required conditions, the Court of Appeals did not consider the facts of Counts 1, 2, and 5. If there had been damages that the court could consider (not emotional distress), then the facts would have been reviewed de novo. But they were not. This did let stand whatever conclusion the lower court had reached.
Sidwell Friends “agreed to recalculate ‘with explanation’ Dayo’s Math II grades for the 2011-2012 year” (App. 23a from the Superior Court). This agreement was apparently reached after Spring 2013, based on the mention of a Spring 2013 grade in the court record (see page App. 23a from the Superior Court). I don’t know how the school could have agreed to recalculate Dayo’s Math II grades, when the records had been shredded. From the timeline of events, it appears to me that they were already shredded by Spring 2013.
Perhaps the people drawing up the settlement on behalf of the school did not know at that point that the records from Math II had been shredded. I have to assume that, because I don’t know how one can agree in good faith to an element of a settlement that one knows is impossible to perform.
We don’t exactly know what happened or did not happen. I would not make an automatic presumption in favor of the school, based on all the information that is out there. The remarks against “possible, probable” seem mainly to be directed at anyone suggesting that Dayo was not exactly treated well. Maybe I am reading them wrong, though.
Reviewing the grades, as in “Yep, that’s the grade I assigned, all righty,” would not seem to me to constitute a review “with explanation.” That is the most that could have been done about the Math II grades, in the circumstances.
Would guess Dayo had copies of her tests.
Just to be clear: I am not unsympathetic to the Math II teacher. Just as there is no royal road to geometry, there is no athletic exemption based on the math that one might have learned, had one been in class and not at a track meet.
At my university, faculty are only required to keep final exams for one year after a course has ended. I might start holding them longer. Several of my colleagues do not like the university-required make-up opportunities, for varsity athletes, though they honor them.
At our school students are not allowed to copies of the tests.