The Over-Enrolled Intensive Course
Northgate Business English Centre runs a 12-week intensive JCE programme. The registrar has enrolled 23 learners into a room licensed for 18, because three late applications arrived after the published cut-off and the sales team promised seats. The lead teacher, Ms. Okafor, has two groups already at capacity and one part-time teacher available for six hours per week. The centre's own policy states that no class may exceed the licensed capacity and that any exception requires written approval from the academic manager. The academic manager is on leave for ten days. Two of the late applicants have already paid in full; one has a visa deadline in five weeks. Ms. Okafor must decide what to do before the first session on Monday.
1. Identify the competing obligations Ms. Okafor faces and recommend a course of action for Monday.
Read the worked answer
Ms. Okafor faces three competing obligations. First, a compliance obligation: the licensed capacity of 18 is a hard limit, and the centre's own policy makes any exception conditional on written academic-manager approval, which is unavailable for ten days. Second, a contractual/customer obligation: two late applicants have paid in full and one has a visa deadline. Third, a pedagogical obligation: 23 learners in an intensive programme with one part-time teacher at six hours per week cannot receive adequate speaking practice or feedback.
The defensible action is to cap the Monday session at 18 and treat the five excess learners as a separate, formally recorded cohort. She should not simply turn people away, because money has changed hands and a visa timeline is at stake. Instead she should:
- Document the capacity breach in writing and escalate to whoever holds delegated authority during the manager's leave.
- Offer the three late applicants a deferred start or a supervised self-study bridge until a second group opens.
- For the visa-deadline learner, request written confirmation of enrolment for visa purposes without claiming a seat that does not exist.
- Record the sales team's promise as an internal process failure so it is addressed at the next review.
The key judgement is that verbal assurances from sales do not override a written capacity policy, and that a teacher should not unilaterally absorb a compliance risk to avoid a difficult conversation.
2. The part-time teacher offers to 'just squeeze everyone in and not tell anyone'. How should Ms. Okafor respond, and what does this reveal about escalation duties?
Read the worked answer
Ms. Okafor should decline clearly and explain why, without personal criticism. The offer is understandable - it solves the immediate discomfort - but it converts a known, documented risk into a concealed one. If an inspection, insurance claim, or parent complaint arises, the concealment becomes the more serious issue than the original over-enrolment.
Her response should separate the person from the proposal: acknowledge the goodwill, state that the licensed number is not a preference but a condition of operating, and note that she is already escalating in writing. She should also give the part-time teacher a legitimate role - for example, running the bridge sessions for deferred learners - so the offer of help is used rather than rejected.
This reveals the escalation duty: a teacher's responsibility is to surface a conflict between policy and commercial pressure to someone with authority to resolve it, and to keep a written record. It is not to resolve it silently. The correct test is not 'can we get away with it?' but 'if this goes wrong, is there a record showing we acted properly?' Here the answer before Monday is no, which is precisely why the written escalation must happen first.