Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of an independent review panel that considered a school’s decision to exclude Miss X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel reached its decision to warrant further investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Miss X said there was fault in the conduct of an independent review panel (IRP) hearing because the school statement used at the hearing was not the original one. She said the school had not stated at its own exclusion meeting with her what her child’s actions had been to warrant the permanent exclusion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code. I also considered the papers presented to the IRP and the notes of its deliberations.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The complaint concerns the Council’s function in providing the IRP. We can only consider if, on the balance of probabilities, there was fault by the IRP. We cannot reach our own view about whether the child should have been permanently excluded.
8. An IRP has to decide if a school governing body’s decision to permanently exclude a child has been properly reached. It must satisfy itself that the child did what was claimed, that the school’s action in excluding was proportionate, and that the school acted within its legal powers. We would also expect an IRP to consider what the child’s parent said at the hearing.
9. The panel papers leave no doubt about the central details of the events that led to the permanent exclusion. I am not describing them in order to protect the identity of the child. But part of what happened was captured on CCTV, with part taking place in a location where schools cannot place cameras. Miss X accepted that her child had acted in the way described or similar to it. Her contention was instead that the sanction was too severe given his special educational needs (SEN) and past experiences. The teacher involved wrote an account that described the effect on her of what happened, which also involved actions by other pupils in the same upper secondary age range. That the school may not have described the incident to Miss X at its own exclusion meeting is not relevant. Nor are any textual changes that might have been made by the school. This is because the evidence before the panel from differing sources was enough for it to safely reach the view that, on the balance of probabilities, the child had acted in the way alleged.
10. The panel also found that the school’s action in permanently excluding the child was proportionate, contrary to Miss X’s view that it was too severe. The panel’s notes observed that it is not common to permanently exclude a child with an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. They also show the panel took account of Miss X’s case, which was that the school had failed to meet her child’s SEN properly, and that her child had not realised during the incident the effect his actions were having on the teacher, who was described as an experienced member of staff. The panel notes record it was impressed by the way in which Miss X presented her case. But they also show the panel found the school’s reasoning convincing. The school had stated that the child’s actions were serious breaches of its discipline policy, and that they were well known to other pupils. It stated that any lesser sanction would undermine discipline in the school as a whole. Given the evidence before it, the IRP could decide the school’s actions were proportionate.
11. The notes also show the IRP considered whether the school had acted within its legal powers. They record the panel’s view that, while not perfect, the way the school had acted and conducted the governors’ appeal was sufficient to meet the legal standard required. There were separate notes of the panel’s deliberations before reaching its decision, and the panel had also annotated a flow chart of the matters it had to consider. As the panel acted properly in reaching its decision by applying the correct tests and in considering the case Miss X put forward, it was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel reached its decision to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman