Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the refusal of a school to reconsider its decision to permanently exclude Mr X’s child following the recommendation of an Independent Review Panel. There is an absolute bar that prevents us investigating the action of a school.

The complaint

1. Mr X said a review panel recommended his child be allowed to return to his school, but that this had been declined even though the reasons for the exclusion were proved incorrect.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X provided a copy of the Independent Review Panel’s decision. This showed the panel found the school governors’ decision was flawed and not robust. It decided that, on the balance of probabilities, there was not enough evidence to decide the child had acted as alleged. It also said the minutes of the school governors’ exclusion meeting lacked detail, or evidence that they had considered proportionality, given another pupil received a different sanction for the same alleged matter. It found the school’s exclusion policy lacked clarity about what constituted a serious matter. The Independent Review Panel recommended the school governors “reconsiders reinstatement” of Mr X’s child.
6. The school governors declined to do so. Although we could have investigated the conduct of the panel had it upheld the permanent exclusion, we cannot investigate the actions of the school governors because they are the actions of a school. And the Independent Review Panel has no power to compel readmission.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because it concerns the actions of a school.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman