THE school admitted that the three students had lied about Russel's behaviour in their reflections.

It arranged a second meeting with the parents on 7 Nov to clarify this.

But it said it would not issue a letter of apology to Russel or his parents.

The spokesman said of the 12 Oct meeting: 'The objective was not to take disciplinary action against (Russel), but to seek (Mrs Chan's) support to reinforce the message of safety and respect for other students.'

Before the second meeting on 7 Nov, the school told Russel and four schoolmates to write reflections on how incidents with Russel had affected them personally.

NOT THREATENED

The spokesman said they were not forced to write the reflections, and all wrote independently and willingly.

'At no point was Russel threatened during the meeting, as the thrust has always been to help Russel think through his actions and behaviour and to work with the parents to help and support him.'

The spokesman said investigations showed that 'some of the allegations made about Russel were untrue'.

The 7 Nov meeting was to clear Russel of the false allegations.

The school also wanted to give him feedback on what had caused discomfort to his peers and give advice on improving his social interaction.

In addition, counselling sessions had been arranged for Russel and his schoolmates.

As to why the disciplinary issues were not in the report card, the spokesman said this was intentional.

'The balanced comments and views on Russel in his report card are consistent with the school's belief in affirming our students and supporting child development.'

After Russel's parents wrote in to withdraw him from the school, the spokesman said it continued engaging Mrs Chan to let the boy stay. It also offered to help with a transfer but these offers were rebuffed.

This article was first published in The New Paper on Jun 11, 2008.

Is this article useful to you?