Overview
The father (Mr C) of a student (Mr A) complained that the supervision of Mr A's teacher training placement at a primary school was inadequately monitored. He considered that the University of Strathclyde (the University) failed to respond appropriately to Mr A's reports of bullying by the class teacher in whose class his placement took place. Mr C also complained about the University's handling of appeals and complaints about these matters.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the University:
- (a) did not ensure that a placement was suitably supervised (not upheld);
- (b) failed in their duty of care to Mr A with respect to a report of bullying or harassment (not upheld);
- (c) did not respond adequately to a complaint about these matters (upheld); and
- (d) did not conduct Mr A's appeals to the Board of Examiners, Faculty or Senate appropriately (partially upheld to the extent that the presence of the Course Director and the Vice Dean (Academic) at the Senate Appeals Committee was inappropriate and that the minutes of the Senate Appeals Committee lacked clarity).
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the University:
- (i) ensure that information provided to schools about 'cause for concern' students should require schools to contact the University immediately, given the tight timescale for remedying potential problems on placement, in particular final placements;
- (ii) should work with schools to ensure that, barring exceptional circumstances, all class teachers who are to mentor student teachers are in possession of the relevant documents before placement begins;
- (iii) try to resolve the relationship between placement practice and the Dignity and Respect Policy, given the circumstances of this complaint;
- (iv) acknowledge directly to Mr A their fault in not advising him that he might have wished to discuss his situation with one of the University's Dignity and Respect Advisers, and apologise to him for this failing.
- (v) apologise to Mr A and Mr C for the shortcomings in their complaint investigation highlighted in this report and take steps to ensure that these elements of their process are properly followed in future;
- (vi) apologise to Mr A and Mr C for the shortcomings in their handling of the Senate Appeal highlighted in this report;
- (vii) consider how to deal holistically with cases such as this, where bullying and harassment complaints, academic complaints and academic appeals are made at the same time, taking account of short timescales where students need to progress, graduate and/or complete professional registration;
- (viii) revise relevant policies and procedures to be clear about whether adverse circumstances relating to health should be applied where there is no registered disability and no request from the student to take such circumstances into account. Policies should also be clear on the standard of proof normally required when Board of Examiners consider adverse circumstances;
- (ix) revise relevant policies and procedures to be clear about who should be invited to attend Senate Appeals Committee meetings and in what capacity, with an emphasis on avoiding conflict of interest in line with paragraph 3.16 of the Academic Appeals Procedure; and
- (x) ensure that there is clarity on recording the outcome in terms of whether an appeal is upheld, not upheld or if there is no finding (if no finding is appropriate in the context of an academic appeal).
The University have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.