If the governing board considers all relevant information and still comes to a conclusion that does not logically follow from the information provided, then the decision may be irrational and fail the reasonableness test. This can be a difficult argument to make successfully. As long as the governing board's decision is within the 'range of reasonable decisions', then it will not be unreasonable, even if it is not the ideal conclusion or is not representative of best practice. The test is can be put as:
Was the governing board's decision so unreasonable that no reasonable governing body would have made it?
For example, Sai is excluded for punching another student. Sai denies involvement, and CCTV shows him in a different location at the time of the attack, and the victim does not know who punched them. Regardless, the governing board upheld the exclusion, having concluded that Sai was responsible. This conclusion does not follow logically from the information available and may be described as irrational.
Consider the evidence that was presented to the governing board, and the minutes of the governing board hearing or any other record of the hearing. Then consider the governing board's decision letter.
Then ask the question: Given the relevant information and evidence available, was the governing board's decision so unreasonable that no reasonable governing board could have made it?
If the answer is yes, consider using the Suggested Wording document: Argument to the IRP: Governing board's decision unreasonable because it was irrational having considered relevant information
Once you have answered this question, click continue to proceed to the next step.