[ad_1]
While this is an extraordinary situation, in reality, there has been a lack of admission to subsequent classes with distance education and it has also led to disputes. Like the one in the comment. When the applicant was not allowed to attend the next class in the final voting result. Among the various issues, it was contested that “due to distance education due to the health emergency, the student could not use the usual tools to recover the deficiencies reported, still achieving sufficiency in many disciplines.” But this was not enough for the TAR, which with judgment of September 14, No. 09564/2020, rejected the appellant’s appeal in defense of her lawyer.
There is no shortage of information if the coordinator alerts the student or family
Having reconstructed the way the Class Council evaluated the student in question, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court notes that “there was no lack of information as the class coordinator reported having warned the applicant and tried to call the applicant several times. student to call her into a presence even in distance learning that has never been done. ”Therefore, it follows that the attempts made by the class coordinator can satisfy the information obligation that the school must guarantee to protect the student rights.
If the conduct vote is insufficient even with the DAD, it may be decisive for non-admission.
On the part of the plaintiff, it was pointed out that the OM in question affirmed in paragraph 6 of article 4 that “in cases where the teachers of the class council are not in possession of any evaluation element related to the student, for reasons not attributable to difficulties related to the availability of technological equipment or network connectivity, but to situations of non-attendance or sporadic attendance at teaching activities, which persist and are already duly registered for the first school period, the class council, with unanimous motivation, he will not be able to admit to the next class “. Therefore, arguing that the rejection was not contemplated in the hypotheses provided for by the ministerial order, which, according to the appellant, was provided only in the case of the non-existence of some element of assessment that existed instead in the present case and for On the contrary, the student, he pointed out in the appeal, had even improved his academic performance, showing commitment and will. All of this was not enough for the TAR. For the judges ”while the ordinance 11/2020 allows to ignore to a large extent the academic performance in derogation of the provisions of art. 4, paragraph 5, Presidential Decree 122/2009, the same derogation cannot operate for the vote on conduct that describes the student’s behavior and not performance; The behavior was not affected by the situation that forced to operate with distance education and therefore a serious insufficiency in this area justifies in itself the non-admission to the next class, even more so if it is accompanied by insufficient performance and low participation . to school life “.
Principles that will probably have to be taken into account in case distance education needs to be reaffirmed.
[ad_2]
