Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon
- The chief ombudsman is concerned school boards are not acting fairly when disciplining students or making decisions on their enrolment
- Two high school boards have failed to comply with the Ombudsman's recommendations and apologise to families
- Judge Peter Boshier says in rare cases he can escalate his concerns to the prime minister and Parliament
The chief ombudsman says it is "really disappointing" two separate school boards have refused to apologise after failing to listen to parents' concerns.
Last September, the Ombudsman investigated a St Peter's College Board's decision to exclude a student from the Auckland school for using drugs, and a decision by Cashmere High School Board's not to accept an out-of-zone student.
Both complaints were upheld and the school boards were ordered to apologise - but they have refused to.
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier said it was rare for school boards not to implement his recommendations and he hoped the boards would apologise as directed.
He said parents and children had the right to complain if they felt a school board had not followed correct processes.
If the complaint was upheld but recommendations not implemented, it could be retraumatising, he said.
"I would hope that after reflection the two boards of trustees see that they are out of line and if they seek guidance from the New Zealand School Trustees Association, I think they will find that they will be counselled to put things right."
Auckland student excluded for marijuana use
In the St Peter's College case, a year 11 student admitted to having bought marijuana both inside and outside of school, and smoking it outside of school. The student was suspended.
The board determined the student's actions amounted to gross misconduct and he was excluded over concerns about the impact of his behaviour on other students and the school's reputation.
The student's parents complained the decision was not made in accordance with the Ministry of Education's guidelines on stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions, but the board maintained its position.
A complaint was made to the ombudsman, who said the decision to exclude the student was unreasonable and identified significant issues around decision making and record keeping.
In cases where the board had suspended other students, notes showed it clearly considered mitigating and aggravating features before making a decision on the appropriate disciplinary response.
In this case, there was a "notable absence" of such notes and the board was not able to explain why it explicitly noted the factors it considered when deciding with the appropriate disciplinary response for other students, but not in this case.
"The board's records failed to show it had considered each option and why it decided a more lenient option wasn't available. I would expect any board to keep an exact record when making such a serious decision about a student's education."
He recommended the board apologise to the student and the parents for its errors, attach a copy of his report to the student's disciplinary record and at future suspension meetings, record their deliberations, the aggravating and mitigating factors, the consideration of each option and the reason for its decision.
The school board indicated it would not apologise to the student and his parents, but would implement the other recommendations.
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier. Photo: Getty Images
School head defends exclusion call
St Peter's College headmaster James Bentley told Checkpoint the school was not going to apologise as the board believed exclusion was the right decision.
"We respect that the ombudsman can hold his views, but the board of trustees is legally entitled to hold a different view, and we believe that exclusion was the right decision in this situation."
The removal of the student from school was a last resort, and the school board considered several factors when making the decision, he said.
"The seriousness of the incident, genuine remorse and whether the student can be safely returned to the school without further issues."
Regarding the ombudsman's report which said other students with similar behaviour had been treated unfairly, he said this case was particularly serious.
"There was a number of boys involved in these incidents and some boys were expelled, some boys were excluded, and some boys were returned. Two boys were returned to school with conditions. Like every situation, it's a case-by-case basis and that's how the board ruled it," he said.
"The board ruled… it was more serious in terms of the incidents that he was involved in, and they would have had some other concerns around a safe return to school. There were huge factors in play - some people were lesser scale, some were more serious."
He said pastoral care and support for the student was an option instead of exclusion, but the incident was deemed serious by the school's board.
"This was a serious enough incident that exclusion was warranted, and we do understand that people in society don't see marijuana as that big a deal anymore. But our board of trustees has a different view."
He was surprised by the ombudsman's decision, he said.
"Personally, I was surprised… marijuana buying and selling is illegal and there's no place in any of our schools, and personally I would have hoped that the ombudsman would have supported us on this. But he did take a different approach."
In the report, the ombudsman drew on an incident two years ago, where students buying marijuana from a student at the school were expelled, with the person selling not given the same punishment.
He said with the most recent incident, the board was standing with their decision to exclude the student.
"Each case has to stand up for itself, and you have to get the facts of each case, so you can't have a blanket rule for everything, and the board has every right as to make their decisions that they seem appropriate."
Christchurch student declined enrolment at siblings school after policy change
In the Cashmere High School case, Judge Boshier found the board was not unreasonable in declining the enrolment, but the way it was communicated to the parents was.
The parents had moved out of the school's enrolment zone due to factors outside their control but had a number of children who remained enrolled there. When another one of their children completed intermediate school, they believed they could enrol him as an out-of-zone student because their other children were students there.
However, Cashmere High School's policy had changed and it no longer accepted out-of-zone enrolments for siblings of current students.
The couple wrote to the board, explained their circumstances that their child had a disability and they were concerned it would socially and emotionally disadvantage them if they could not attend the same school as siblings and friends, upon whom they relied for support.
They were told their request could not be considered as the school needed to follow its enrolment processes, which led them to complain to the ombudsman.
The investigation found the board was unable to consider the factors the family had put forward when assessing their out-of-zone enrolment request.
The board told the ombudsman the parents should apply to the Ministry of Education to use provisions available to direct the student's enrolment to the school if they felt he was going to be genuinely disadvantaged by not attending. This information was not provided to the parents at the time their enrolment application was declined.
"The board didn't explain the basis for its decision nor did it outline the factors it considered beforehand. This made the parents feel like they hadn't been listened to. They were unsure whether the board had considered the factors they put forward in their letter before reaching a decision."
Boshier recommended the board take appropriate steps to ensure its members were aware of the need to properly explain the basis for decisions and provide a comprehensive written apology to the parents for the deficiencies in its communication.
The Cashmere High School Board said while it considered the ombudsman's opinion and recommendations, it had come to a different view and would not be implementing the recommendations.
Boshier said he had the ability to escalate his concerns to the prime minister and Parliament if his recommendations were not complied with, and he could ask them to examine the situation and decide what further action to take.
"I shouldn't need to do this. I expect that when I make recommendations, they are complied with. The vast majority of boards do this, so it is very disappointing when some do not."
