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:

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?

1.2

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.
Is the plagiarism policy reasonable?

1.3

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

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"

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.

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,
nd
in the case of the incidents on February 2 , 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.

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.

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?

2.3

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.
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

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.

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

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:
7

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.