Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (06C06190)
School exclusions Maladministration causing injustice
27 March 2008
The complaint
Ms P complained that the Council failed to provide appropriate educational provision for her son, Q, who had a statement of special educational needs.
What happened
After doing well at a special primary school, Q moved to his local mainstream secondary school where his behaviour caused problems. In years 8 and 9 he was excluded for fixed periods, and from then on the school severely restricted his attendance. A modern apprenticeship course and a work placement both broke down.
Ms P could not appeal against her son’s exclusion, because the school had not formally excluded him.
The Ombudsman’s investigation showed that the Council did nothing about the situation although it knew that Q was only allowed to attend school part time and that the school felt it could not meet his needs. Although an educational psychologist and a consultant psychiatrist recommended that Q should be reassessed, the Council refused on grounds that he was then entering year 11. At this point Ms P asked the Council to place her son at a specialist independent school. Initially the Council ignored her requests, and then it refused on grounds that the mainstream school could meet his needs.
The Ombudsman’s views
The actions of the school were outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. She noted, however, that by not making the exclusions either formal or permanent the school effectively circumvented:
- Ms P’s rights of appeal;
- the governors’ obligation to meet with her; and
- the Council’s statutory obligation to provide full-time education for her son.
The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council for failing to:
- refer Q for support in accordance with Government guidance;
- act in accordance with its own behaviour support plan;
- listen to Ms P’s concerns about her son’s restricted attendance and to consider the implications of this for its own duties;
- actively consider his annual review reports as required by the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice 2001; and
- respond to requests to reassess Q’s needs as required by the Code.
The Ombudsman was also concerned that there was no evidence that the Council had considered its general duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.
As a result, Q’s educational needs were not met throughout his last three years at secondary school. He was assessed as being ‘able’ and ‘intellectually bright’ but was deprived of the opportunity to reach his full potential, to be included in his school community, and to make a successful transition to adulthood. His mother suffered frustration and distress in trying to support him while he was out of school for long periods and in trying to get the Council to fulfil its duties.
The outcome
The Ombudsman recommended that, to remedy the injustice, the Council should:
- create a special fund equivalent to three years’ basic wages for a 16/17-year-old, plus three years’ college fees and make it available to Q to meet his living costs and fees if he returns to education in the next 10 years; and
- pay Ms P £1,000 to reflect the impact of its failings on her.
Date Updated: 13/01/09