I agree with you. There seems to be be a lot of details missing here.
I agree also.
I could be wrong as I was only half paying attention, but the mother was interviewed by Fox the other morning and I thought I heard the mother also complaining that her daughter Rose was not allowed to attend and participate in after school sporting events – on days where she had either not come to school at all or had only attended partial days! If she is and too sick to attend school, why would she be then well enough to play and participate in sports? I too think there is a lot more to this story than what is being reported.
Barbara McGrath told The Associated Press St. Joseph Middle School officials informed her that Rose McGrath could return to the Battle Creek school but postponed a meeting to discuss concerns until later this week to allow for "a cooling off period." Barbara McGrath said that her daughter is attending Lakeview Middle School and that she can't say whether Rose will return to St. Joseph until she determines if issues can be resolved.
And what unresolved “issues” does she have at this point? The school relented under media pressure to allow her back in but now that isn’t good enough? Sure I feel much sympathy for a sick child battling cancer, but then again this is a private school and the school FWIU, tried as best as they could to accommodate her and her absences. But at the end of the day, they have no obligation to accommodate her if she is not able to meet their attendance and academic requirements.
"It sounds like they're not going to pass her anyway, even if she goes back," Barbara McGrath said of her 7th-grade daughter, who is in remission but still recovering from treatments for acute lymphoblastic leukemia diagnosed in 2012. "I don't see her being able to go back there and being successful."
And why should they pass her even if she goes back if she was/is not able to keep up and doesn’t meet the requirements of passing?
The school wrote in a letter addressed to Rose's father and provided to the AP by the family that officials worked with her but absences "hampered her academic performance." It adds that the 12-year-old had attended 32 full days this academic year out of 134 days as of April 13, but Barbara McGrath says that doesn't include "numerous" partial days.
The school also wrote that it has taken "significant adjustments to our standards" to help Rose, including reducing her workload and paring down assignments and tests…."Rose's attendance, coupled with her academic performance, do not qualify her for continued attendance at St. Joseph Middle School," the letter read. "We know Rose to be an intelligent and thoughtful child, and believe she would be well-suited to enroll in an academic setting more geared to homebound students, perhaps an online program as we have discussed in the past."
If she is too sick to attend school or attend on a regular basis, she would IMO be better suited to be enrolled in and participate in an online schooling program, a program where she would benefit from the “distance learning model”, be able to do school work and complete assignments on a more flexible schedule and interact with teachers and other students remotely, online, rather than her current school just sending her assignments and tests home to her.
FWIW, in late winter of 1961 my big brother after a ruptured appendix, contracted encephalitis and meningitis, he nearly, came very close to dying from it. He was in the hospital for 3 months and had to re-learn how to walk, talk and feed himself again, spent several more weeks at home recovering.
When he was finally well enough to start doing some school work from home, he was already seriously behind and his school, also a Catholic private school, made the decision with our parent’s agreement and support, to hold him back another year.
This was not done to “punish” him because of his illness, but to ensure he was able to catch up and not just be passed along thus putting him a further risk of failing.
I hope this young girl has many, many years of good health.
The points you and others have made in your posts are excellent.
But, I’m divided on this one...
My question is why did the school dismiss her? Why not just hold her back a year? Or maybe offer a summer school option? When I was growing up, our Catholic schools had summer school for students who needed to catch up. (And, actually, back then, our Catholic schools also had a demerit system: Even if you misbehaved too much, you weren’t dismissed; you just had to sit in detention through the summer.)
Also, in my Catholic school back then, there was a student fighting leukemia. I don’t know if he was ever held back, but he sure wasn’t dismissed. He wanted to be a priest when he grew up, but he passed away in the ninth grade.
I do think there’s more to this story. For example, maybe other options were offered but the family declined?
I agree with the academic requirements. They must be met. Considerations of timelines for projects and tests based on treatments should be reviewed. If the kid has a 4-5 hour infusion and the next day a test, perhaps look at a day or two later. These situations are not one size fits all and the parents and school admin must be closely communicating.
The attendance standards are another matter. The school should have enough information to know a youth first year chemo regimen is inpatient intensive and high risks of infection due to neutropenia. That should have been 'hashed out' in conference and inked in an agreement.
The parents are paying for this education...interesting...It is also a Catholic school...You would think cooler heads would prevail.