Suspension vs. Expelled
55.1 So now that it has been established that the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo refused to uphold the mandated requirements as laid out by the Government of Ontario and their own DSBN policies.
55.2 We again conveniently have Mary Anne Gage still trying to wish into existence that the applicant was not suspended/expelled.
From: Mary Anne Gage maryanne.gage@dsbn.org
Jacqueline Ravazzolo jacqueline.ravazzolo@dsbn.org
Dated: October 7, 2022
Hello, in response to your email please know that your son has not been suspended from Connaught School. HOWEVER, the incident that your son was involved in yesterday REQUIRES us to meet with yourself and your son to ensure the safety of all students, including your son, is maintained at our school.
The regular process is that a principal speaks with all parties involved. You have been very clear that you do not want anyone speaking with your son without you present.
55.3 So let us go over the significance and content of this email.
55.4 HOWEVER is defined as
- used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously.
55.5 “contradict something that has been said previously.” The only statement that was previously said was “Hello, in response to your email please know that your son has not been suspended from Connaught School.” Despite claims to the contrary, it is obvious that the applicant was suspended/expelled from Connaught Public School.
55.6 As Mary Anne Gage’s ‘HOWEVER’ indicates that the previous statement is subject to a contradiction. And that contradiction statement is that it “REQUIRES us to meet with yourself and your son” and “The regular process is that a principal speaks with all parties involved.”
55.7 SO THERE YOU HAVE IT! Before the applicant can go back to school, there is a requirement that must be satisfied.
55.8 REQUIRES is defined as
- to demand as necessary or essential, having a compelling need for.
55.9 Translated – Your son is not permitted to return to Connaught Public School if we are unable to speak with him about the incident he was involved in yesterday in the required manner. This now resembles and sounds a lot like a suspension/expulsion! Thus, it took 12 days before the applicant was actually TOLD he could go back to school by Mary Anne Gage.
55.10 Now reviewing the DSBN website definition of suspension – “Students cannot go to school or take part in regular school activities or events while on suspension but are provided with homework packages to complete while on suspension.”
55.11 And according to the government of Ontario’s website definition of suspension is School suspensions – A suspension means a student is removed from school temporarily for up to 20 school days. During this time, the student:
- cannot attend or take part in regular school activities or events
- has other opportunities to continue learning to help them stay on track with their education
- Only a principal can suspend a student.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/school-suspensions-and-expulsions/
55.12 So it is now very obvious that Jacqueline Ravazzolo suspended/expelled the application with the support of the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage.
55.13 So how does the applicant’s situation stack up with these Government of Ontario and DSBN policies?
- Was the applicant banned from attending and taking part any school activities, including learning? YES!
- Was he offered other opportunities to continue to learn, to stay on track with his education? NO!
- Did the principal of Connaught School Public state that the applicant was not allowed back for an indefinite amount of time? YES!
55.14 As YES was the answer to ONLY two of the three questions. Does it still qualify as a suspension? It appears not according to the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage who must believe that a YES must be present in all three questions to qualify as a suspension.
55.15 And with the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage deliberately failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Education Act and their own DSBN policies by deliberately refusing to specify a specific number of days in which the applicant must serve before being permitted to return to school. It would seem that this is what has inspired them to say “that your son has not been suspended from Connaught School.”
55.16 Therefore, disregarding all common sense and logic at this point. Let us now investigate the hypothesis that the application was expelled.
Expulsion
- Students who are expelled from school must be provided with opportunities to continue their education and must be offered additional non-academic supports, such as counseling, to help promote positive behavior.
- An expulsion is different from a suspension. An expulsion does not have a time limit. Expelled students are removed from school for an indefinite time period. Students are suspended first, while expulsion is being considered.
- Students can be expelled from their own school or they can be expelled from all schools in the DSBN. After an investigation, the administrator recommends whether a student should be expelled.
- Only the Student Discipline Committee of the Board of Trustees can make the decision to expel a student.
55.17 So how does this apply to the applicant?
- Was the applicant provided with opportunities to continue their education and must be offered additional non-academic supports, such as counseling, to help promote positive behavior? NO!
- Did the applicant’s expulsion come with a time limit? NO!
- After an investigation, the administrator recommended the applicant should be expelled? UNKNOWN!
- Did the Student Discipline Committee of the Board of Trustees make the decision to expel a student? UNKNOWN!
55.18 And because the parents were never provided a mandated letter that should have contained crucial details such;
- Length of the expulsion,
- Reason for the expulsion,
- The supervisory officer’s information, Information on how and when to appeal the expulsion,
- And the DSBN did not hold an expulsion hearing within 20 school days of the student being suspended of which the parents and student must have been invited to attend.
55.19 It is clear that at this point that the applicant was suspended and that the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage where just playing games with the applicant emotional wellbeing, ability to learning, educational experience and best interest!
55.20 There never was, and there will never be any law or legal provision that grants Jacqueline Ravazzolo the authority to remove any child from school for her own personal discretion.
55.21 So if according to Mary Anne Gage it was not a suspension or expulsion. What was it? What is it called when they refuse to allow a Black 12-year-old child/student to attend school without any legal justification or explanation?
- Did Jacqueline Ravazzolo misuse her limited authority as a weapon to retaliate against the Black child/student for exposing her racist and discriminatory behavior against them in favor of a bully Caucasian Marcus?
- Did Jacqueline Ravazzolo abuse her limited authority as a tool to punish the Black child/student for exposing her ability to get Kevin Maddalena to lie upon a Black child/student in order to preserve her own reputation and job?
- Did Jacqueline Ravazzolo decide to unjustly remove the Black child/student in order to demonstrate to him and his parents they were not in charge and she was going to get the respect as a woman in power?
- Or perhaps Jacqueline Ravazzolo realized, after being unjustly promoted to principal that she wanted to get into a pissing contest with the parents until she got her access to their son for interrogation? That she was no pushover like her predecessor, Christopher McInnis.
55.22 Only Jacqueline Ravazzolo can provide an explanation for why she considered it necessary to illegally suspend the applicant from attending school and hinder his opportunity to learn, as he was clearly NOT SUSPENDED OR EXPELLED according to the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage.
55.23 You see, there a several reasons the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage wish to claim that the applicant was neither suspended nor expelled.
- They did not fulfil their mandated DSBN G-28 – Student Discipline obligations to ”offer” the applicant “range of programs to support academics” after being removed from school for 12 days.
I. “Students who are suspended for more than five school days are considered to be on a long-term suspension and are offered a range of programs to support academics and positive behavior.”
II. The education act adds. “These programs will be based on the student’s needs, length of the suspension, the nature and severity of the behavior as well as mitigating and other factors.”
- They failed to uphold their respective and mandated responsibilities under the DSBN G-28 – Student Discipline to deliver the MANDATORY letter that was required by the Education Act and should have included the following:
I. Length of the suspension,
II. Reason for the suspension,
III. The supervisory officer’s information,
IV. Information on how and when to appeal the suspension,
V. Offer a range of programs to support academics and positive behavior for the suspend student.
- The principal Jacqueline Ravazzolo failed to uphold her mandated responsibilities under the Government of Ontario – Bullying Policy that the “Principals must contact the parents or guardians of students who have been bullied and students who have engaged in bullying, to tell them
I. what happened
II. what harm was done to the student
III. what steps were taken to protect the student’s safety, including any disciplinary measures taken in response to the incident
IV. what supports will be provided for the student in response to the incident
- The deliberately failed to uphold her mandated responsibilities under the Government of Ontario – Bullying Policy
That she NEVER “provided” the applicant or his family any type of assistance through “programs, interventions or other supports for students who have been bullied, witnessed bullying or engaged in bullying.”
55.24 So why did the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo keep pushing this lie? Because they didn’t complete their assigned and mandated responsibilities and were consequently forced to make a difficult decision.
55.25 Accept that they made mistakes in how they handled the applicant and all of his interactions with aggressive Caucasian students and the stereotyping staff, or keep trying to protect Jacqueline Ravazzolo from being held accountable for her racist behavior.
55.26 It is pretty clear that the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo made the decision to take the latter route because it was far preferable than giving the impression that they specifically targeted a Black child/student, suspend him from school and then subsequently forgot about him for 12 days until the parents sent an email.
55.27 Only after the parents sent another email criticizing Kevin Maddalena’s gossiping behavior did Mary Anne Gage now unexpectedly, 12 days later, reverse on her firm position about the mandatory meeting that was ordered and required by Jacqueline Ravazzolo and herself in order to allow the application to return to school.
55.28 Mary Anne Gage has now removed the “however” and “requires” stipulation in contrast to the communication from October 7, 2022. It is crystal clear from the removal of these words that the application is now free to return without any requirements attached.
55.29 The parents were confused by the sudden change of stance by Mary Anne Gage and wish for clarification on the matter.
55.30 It was not until the email was sent to Kevin Maddalena about his inappropriate behavior of making the applicant look like he is a trouble maker and his parents unreasonable. That in no way, shape or form, in no uncertain words was the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage or Jacqueline Ravazzolo ever willing to allow the applicant to return to school prior to the parents email.
55.31 Clearly something in the parents email to Kevin Maddalena, spooked everyone into their sudden change of heart of now not requiring to meet with the applicant and his parents and setting the stage for the applicant to return to school.