The Italian Justice confirmed the decision of a secondary school in not promoting a student considering that the establishment acted correctly throughout the evaluation process. The judges concluded that the institution had repeatedly warned the family about the behavioral problems of the student and that she respected the procedures provided for by the regulations.
The resolution ended a dispute that began after the close of the 2024/2025 school year. The family had challenged the decision not to promote the student, who was in her first year of high school. However, both the Regional Administrative Court of Veneto and the Council of State agreed that The school acted in accordance with current regulations.
The student’s behavior was key to the decision
During the final evaluation, the student obtained insufficient grades in five subjects: Geography, Mathematics, Science, Technology and Art. Added to this academic performance was a conduct grade of 5 out of 10, a score that, according to Italian legislation, enables non-promotion to the next year.
The student’s mother initially appealed to administrative justice and got the school board to review the case again. The college met again in September 2025 and, by unanimous decision, ratified the repetition of the year. That second resolution was also questioned judicially, although the courts once again ruled in favor of the institution.
The core of the claim was that the school had incorrectly assessed the adolescent’s behavior and had not implemented inclusion measures in accordance with her needs.
To support this position, the family presented a medical report dated June 30, 2025 that diagnosed misophoniaa disorder that causes an intense reaction to certain sounds and which, they maintained, influenced their behavior in class.
The detail that ended up leading to the ruling
The judges understood that that certificate could not modify the school’s decision because it was presented when the school year had already ended and after the evaluation had been carried out. In addition, they pointed out that throughout the year the school was formally unaware of this medical condition.
That was one of the determining aspects of the case. The ruling highlighted that the institution had maintained multiple contacts with the mother to warn her about the student’s behavioral difficulties and that all disciplinary observations had been recorded and shared with the family.
According to the court file, the school also proposed different support strategies. Among them were the school psychologist interventionan individual tutoring program during class hours and the student’s participation in a creative writing workshop to promote their integration with the rest of the course.
The mother, however, only consulted an outside specialist at the end of June, when classes had already ended.
The justices also rejected the argument that the school should have developed a personalized educational plan. They explained that these types of measures require the institution to know the student’s situation during the course of the school year, something that, according to the ruling, did not occur in this case because the medical documentation was presented once the evaluations were completed.
With these elements, the Council of State concluded that The decision not to promote the student was duly justified. For the judges, the school demonstrated an extensive history of warnings, sanctions and accompanying actions communicated in a timely manner to the family, thus definitively confirming the repetition of the school year.
