Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding, and springing from, the way her daughter (Miss C)'s exclusion from a school (School 1) in Clackmannanshire Council (the Council)'s area was handled. Mrs C had specific concerns about: the exclusion process; the process for enrolling Miss C for her examinations; the way in which the possibility of Miss C attending a new school was handled; and the decision not to allow Miss C to go on a school trip. In respect of all these complaints, Mrs C felt that she and her daughter had been treated unfairly by the Council and by schools within the Council's area.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that
- (a) School 1 failed to provide Miss C with a date on which her exclusion would finish and on which she could return to School 1 (upheld);
- (b) School 1 told Miss C that she would not be able to return to School 1 until the outcome of her appeal was known. Miss C believed that she should have been allowed to return while her appeal was pending (not upheld);
- (c) School 1 failed to tell Miss C and Mrs C who would attend a meeting at School 1 on 6 February 2006 (upheld);
- (d) School 1 failed to inform the Director of Services to People that Miss C had been excluded (not upheld);
- (e) School 1 failed to give Miss C direct teaching input while she was excluded from School 1 for a month (upheld);
- (f) School 1 unnecessarily called a school in another Council's area (School 2) on 20 March 2006 despite the fact that Mrs C had already informed the Council's staff that they were moving to another town outwith the Council's area (not upheld);
- (g) School 1 released Miss C's personal information to School 2 even though, at that time, she did not attend there (not upheld);
- (h) School 1 intentionally and unnecessarily caused alarm to School 2 by telling them about Miss C and her family on 20 March 2006, which gave a bad impression of Miss C at School 2 where she was not yet a pupil (not upheld);
- (i) School 1 intentionally sent a record of Miss C's exclusion to School 2 on 21 March 2006 even though the Council had lifted the reference to exclusion from the file prior to 15 March 2006 (not upheld);
- (j) School 1 failed to inform School 2 that Miss C had returned to School 1 on 27February 2006 (not upheld);
- (k) School 1 failed to enrol Miss C with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) at the same time as enrolling all other pupils (not upheld);
- (l) School 1 failed to enrol Miss C with the SQA towards the end of April 2006 when School 2 called urgently regarding Miss C's exam timetable (not upheld);
- (m) School 1 failed to inform the SQA of Miss C's change of address when enrolling her with the SQA at the end of May (not upheld);
- (n) School 1 failed to provide satisfactory reasons why Miss C was not allowed to go on a school trip in May 2005 and unfairly discriminated against Miss C by not allowing her to go on the trip (not upheld);
- (o) the Council 'nagged' Mrs C and Miss C to consider enrolling at two other schools in the Council's area (School 3) and (School 4), even though Mrs C had made clear that she wished Miss C to return to School 1 (not upheld);
- (p) the Council refused to accept Mrs C and Miss C's decision to return to School 1 during a meeting on 22 February 2006 (not upheld);
- (q) the Council inappropriately called School 4 about Miss C without the consent or knowledge of Miss C or Mrs C (not upheld);
- (r) the Council inappropriately requested that Mrs C enrol Miss C at School 4 when Mrs C had never thought of enrolling her there (not upheld);
- (s) the Council repeatedly pressed Mrs C and Miss C to reconsider enrolling Miss C at either School 3 or School 4, causing emotional harm to them (not upheld);
- (t) School 3 failed to respond to Mrs C's email requesting that Miss C attend School 3 (not upheld);
- (u) School 3 ignored Mrs C's emails in which she said that she had changed her mind and wanted Miss C to stay at School 1 (not upheld);
- (v) School 3 inappropriately sent an email to Mrs C requesting a meeting with the rector of School 3 even though Mrs C had already stated that she wanted Miss C to return to School 1 (not upheld);
- (w) School 3 inappropriately requested, over the telephone, that Mrs C attend a meeting even though she had already informed School 3 and the Council that Miss C wanted to go back to School 1 (not upheld); and
- (x) School 3's actions referred to in complaints (v) and (w) were done with the intention of putting Miss C off returning to School 1, possibly on the instructions of the Council (not upheld).
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
- (i) either review their Exclusion Policy to match their normal practice or take steps to ensure that their normal practice is in line with their current Exclusion Policy;
- (ii) apologise to Miss C for not providing her with the direct teaching input to which she was entitled during her exclusion; and
- (iii) remind relevant officers at School 1 of the requirements of the Exclusion Policy so that, in future, arrangements are made for pupils with a Stage 3 exclusion to be provided direct teaching input.
The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.